Political Crossfire Forums

[blockhead]

Venom wrote: Blockhead wrote: I didn't "blame" anything on Israel. I simply provided a link and statement to provide a reason for them to do this
Really? Then why did you bold these parts: Blockhead wrote: Hamas' armed wing said it launched the rockets because some Israeli troops were still in Gaza, east of the town of Jabaliya, despite the Israelis saying they had pulled out all their troops overnight
It's quite apparent your blaming Israel for the rockets being fired.

Blockhead wrote: The ceasefire calls for either side to NOT go into the buffer zone, let alone practive a bombing run on an international peace keeping force.

Wait a second, I will look away...
The ceasefire also calls for Hezbollah to disarm, yet they are not doing it. This is the second time Israel has accepted this same basic cease fire deal, with Hezbollah refusing to disarm and Lebanon refusing to disarm Hezbollah. Which if you care to look is part of the agreement. So why is it a problem for Israel to be doing recon of their enemy? None in this case. If Lebanon was disarming Hezbollah then sure there would be a problem with Israel doing this. However, they have not which has forced Israel to obtain recon on the enemy which has attacked them time and time again.

Those aren't my words, those are words from a Moscow Matt's link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6184882.stm

I bolded them for emphasis. People do that from time to time.

[blockhead]

Quote: So why is it a problem for Israel to be doing recon of their enemy?

Why even have an agreement if neither side lives up to it's obligations. If Israel wants the other side to live up to their portion of the ceasefire, myabe it shouldn't violate the terms either.


You see nothing wrong with recon their enemy. Do you see any problem with Hebullah not disarming?

[The Comrade]

blockhead wrote: Quote: So why is it a problem for Israel to be doing recon of their enemy?

Why even have an agreement if neither side lives up to it's obligations. If Israel wants the other side to live up to their portion of the ceasefire, myabe it shouldn't violate the terms either.

hezbollah broke the cease-fire hours after it was issued.

[Venom]

Blockhead wrote: I bolded them for emphasis. People do that from time to time.
Of course they do. They bold it to draw your attention, what were you bolding? That Israel was at fault, forcing Hamas to shoot the rockets.

Blockhead wrote: Why even have an agreement if neither side lives up to it's obligations.
Why try the agreement? Because Israel was trying to improve it's international image probably and would like peace for a change.

Blockhead wrote: If Israel wants the other side to live up to their portion of the ceasefire, myabe it shouldn't violate the terms either.
Ya that sounds great on paper, however when you factor in that Hezbollah already stated as well as the Lebanese government stated, that they would not carry their end of the deal... there is no reason for Israel to not go into Lebanese airspace. Is it really a violation when the agreement has been tossed out the window for the other parties involved? I'd wage no.


Telegraph.co.uk wrote: The president of Lebanon ruled out disarming Hizbollah yesterday, rejecting a central element of the United Nations plan for peace on the frontier with Israel. Disarming the guerrilla group is required under UN Resolution 1701, which was passed last Friday
Lebanon backs Hezbollah

Of course UNIFIL is concerned with the cease fire not breaking also right?
Maj. General Alain Pellegrini wrote: Contrary to Israeli hopes that the new multinational force in Lebanon will engage and disarm Hizbullah, the beefed up UNIFIL will not immediately open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they are on their way to an attack or even in the midst of an attack on Israel, the commander of the UN peacekeeping force, Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini
UNIFIL won't stop Hezbollah
So apparently they aren't ok with Israel flying over Lebanon, however if they see a Hezbollah attack about to happen against Israel they won't even attempt to stop it. Apparently this UNIFIL is just another meat shield for Hezbollah.
Quote: The job of the new multinational force, he said, was to assist the Lebanese army and not to disarm or engage Hizbullah or even to prevent its attacks.
Nasrallah wrote: "If anyone, anyone, thinks of disarming the resistance, we will fight them like the martyrs of Karbala,"
url=http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050525-095659-4808r.htm]Hezbollah won't disarm[/url]

So as I've shown here the other parties involved, Hezbollah, UNIFIL, and the Lebanese government will not disarm Hezbollah and have stated this. So why would one expect Israel not to do recon of a enemy that has a history of strikes against them?
Now why Israel agreed to this cease fire I don't know as the groups stated before it even took place they wouldn't disarm Hezbollah and of course Hezbollah said it wouldn't disarm.

[emerald]

i think it's a good start, if both leaders can actually talk and can come to the conclusion of a ceasefire and try to put this into practice then it is a good start.

[superskippy]

We're all hoping it's a good start we can only see where it goes from there.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

blockhead wrote: Quote: So why is it a problem for Israel to be doing recon of their enemy?

Why even have an agreement if neither side lives up to it's obligations. If Israel wants the other side to live up to their portion of the ceasefire, myabe it shouldn't violate the terms either.

You see nothing wrong with recon their enemy. Do you see any problem with Hebullah not disarming?

Trust but, Verify :hy:

[blockhead]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: blockhead wrote: Quote: So why is it a problem for Israel to be doing recon of their enemy?

Why even have an agreement if neither side lives up to it's obligations. If Israel wants the other side to live up to their portion of the ceasefire, myabe it shouldn't violate the terms either.

You see nothing wrong with recon their enemy. Do you see any problem with Hebullah not disarming?

Trust but, Verify :hy:

I guess you don't know the meaning of the word "trust" or "terms of an agreement".

[Venom]

Blockhead wrote: I guess you don't know the meaning of the word "trust" or "terms of an agreement".
It would appear neither does the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, Hamas, the UN, or really any government in the world that I can think of.