Israel Responds to UN Security Council

Originally posted by no1marauder
What do these words mean to you "Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;"

Note the word "immediate".

What do these words mean to you:

"In a speech to last night's Council meeting, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he would be working with Israel and Lebanon this weekend to establish “the exact date and time at which the cessation of hostilities will come into effect.”

Apparently your interpretation of the facts is a little out of tune ?

Originally posted by HumeA
But the Israelis have to act in a way that they percieve is best for Israel, whether we agree with it or not. If they believe that the resolution could end up creating long term problems (too small a word), then they can not agree with it.

Hitler and the Nazis believed they were acting in a way that was best for Germany, but that did not stop an International War Crimes Tribunal from hanging members of their leadership for Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The same result would be justified here though the magnitude of Israel's crimes is less.

Originally posted by no1marauder
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14315126/

In response to the UN Security Council Resolution which called for an "immediate" end to hostilities, Israel tripled its number of ground troops in Lebanon and planned to push about 20 miles into Lebanon to the Litani River."”

.

Marauder, you'd better prepare for bickering about what constitutes "offensive" and "defensive" actions. No doubt Israel will continue its "defensive" actions, Hezbollah will label them as offensive actions and as a result of that hostilities will continue.

There isn't a cease-fire yet, so stop whining about the fact that Israel continues fighting. Hezbollah does the same thing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What do these words mean to you:

"In a speech to last night's Council meeting, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he would be working with Israel and Lebanon this weekend to establish “the exact date and time at which the cessation of hostilities will come into effect.”

Apparently your interpretation of the facts is a little out of tune ?

No it is not. The Secretary General spoke of when the "cessation of hostilities would come into effect" not when the resolution would. The resolution calls for an immediate end to the hostilities; I assume you don't deny that. Thus the resolution comes into effect IMMEDIATELY. Of course, Kofi knows Israel will violate the resolution; it always does and he will go begging to them because of the US veto power. That does not change the fact that Israel is in blatant violation of the terms of the resolution.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder, you'd better prepare for bickering about what constitutes "offensive" and "defensive" actions. No doubt Israel will continue its "defensive" actions, Hezbollah will label them as offensive actions and as a result of that hostilities will continue.

There isn't a cease-fire yet, so stop whining about the fact that Israel continues fighting. Hezbollah does the same thing.

What does the word "immediate" mean to you?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Despite the passage of a UN Security Council Resolution calling for, among other things, a cessation of Israel's "offensive operations" in Lebanon, the Israelis bombed a number of civilian targets including power stations and expanded their ground offensive in Lebanon. Their generals stated they expected to continue their operations for at least a week d ...[text shortened]... onvoy under the supposed "protection" of the UN, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14315126/

Marauder: " .... and giving the Israelis everything they asked for."

Really ? How about the disarmament of Hezbollah ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What does the word "immediate" mean to you?

Ask Kofi Annan. He knows.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Hitler and the Nazis believed they were acting in a way that was best for Germany, but that did not stop an International War Crimes Tribunal from hanging members of their leadership for Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The same result would be justified here though the magnitude of Israel's crimes is less.

I'm not condoning it, but as most of the Arab world wants to see Israel wiped off of the map, you could say that they are defending themselves against a serious threat, while not an immediate one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What does the word "immediate" mean to you?

Then why don't you complain about the Hezbollah actions ? Why aren't their actions a breach of the cease-fire ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it is not. The Secretary General spoke of when the "cessation of hostilities would come into effect" not when the resolution would. The resolution calls for an immediate end to the hostilities; I assume you don't deny that. Thus the resolution comes into effect IMMEDIATELY. Of course, Kofi knows Israel will violate the resolution; it always does and h ...[text shortened]... does not change the fact that Israel is in blatant violation of the terms of the resolution.

Do you have the resolution's text ? I haven't been able to find it yet.

Discussing the resolution's content is much more effective if we have the exact integral text, I would say.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Then why don't you complain about the Hezbollah actions ? Why aren't they a breach of the cease-fire ?

Because they are being attacked. Do you deny that Israel's response to the resolution was to triple its number of troops in Lebanon and aggressively push north? Hezbollah has a standing offer to cease rocket attacks if Israel stops bombing and shelling civilian targets. Israel refuses to do so. In addition, as your link showed, Israel continues to adopt a policy deliberately directed against the Lebanese population of Southern Lebanon. "Ethnic cleansing" is what it was called in the Balkans.

I think it would be a good idea for Lebanon to simply incorporate the Hezbollah militia into its army; that would comply with the resolution. And since this militia has performed better against the Israeli army than any Arab force in history, it would be justified in terms of military efficiency as well.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you have the resolution's text ? I haven't been able to find it yet.

Discussing the resolution's content is much more effective if we have the exact integral text, I would say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14307971/

This has the operative sections but not the preamble. The preamble is not considered binding, but I'll try to find it anyway.

Originally posted by slimjim
That's why its referred to as the Useless Nuisance.

Maybe it should be referred to as the Useless Nations. By the sounds of it the UN is as good as its members.

Originally posted by chrissyb
Maybe it should be referred to as the Useless Nations. By the sounds of it the UN is as good as its members.

I agree, it looks like it could be in danger of going the way of the League of Nations.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because they are being attacked. Do you deny that Israel's response to the resolution was to triple its number of troops in Lebanon and aggressively push north? Hezbollah has a standing offer to cease rocket attacks if Israel stops bombing and shelling civilian targets. Israel refuses to do so. In addition, as your link showed, Israel continues to adopt ...[text shortened]... han any Arab force in history, it would be justified in terms of military efficiency as well.

It seems you do not object to Lebanon becoming an Islamist state.