Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hezbollah Reconstructing Lebanon

International Law labels them an outlaw organisation.

Not specifically. That's either a mistake on your part or deliberate misinformation. 'Lying', I think they call it.

Israel is not "backed" by any other nation, or its money.

Of course it is, to the tune of billions of US dollars per year, dollars that the American taxpayer can ill-afford, there being 40 million Americans living below the poverty line.
America also keeps Israel afloat at the UN. Without American backing Israel would sink like a stone of deceit upon a sea of hypocrisy.

EDIT:
You're turning into a bit of a punch-bag, Rachamim. Perhaps you'd have more success somewhere less informed.
 
rachamim18 said:
Israel is a legal entity, ratified into existence by the UN. Sharon has never been a terrorist although some of his actions in the 50s are certainly questionable.

Israel should not even BE in the UN, as it was only admitted on condition that it allowed full right of return to Palestinians - a condition that it has yet to fulfil.
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html

Israel is not "backed" by any other nation, or its money. Please do the relevant research.

Oh, I have. Besides the financial and military support, which is well documented, Israel is also the country most censured by the UN - saved only by the veto of the USA. Do you not call this 'backing'?

http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

Here is a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied. As far as I know they have ignored every single resolution. But the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. (See Table)

Israel’s, defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Did the IDF establish that it was the same soldiers in the UN post as at that time?

Or do they just have a bit of a grudge against the UN forces generally?

rachamim18,

would you care to answer Bernie's question for us please.
 
First, I did not see Bernie's "question" but to answer it for him, some actually were of the very same contingent on duty in 2000. Most were not, having been rotated out. It is the UN as an entity and not its peons that concerns. The UN as an institution is the entity that denied that the tape had been made. It is the UN that finally provided the tape, after mass indignation, with all identifying marks censored out.

They sat on that patio, if any of you have even seen the villa they requisitioned, on the second floor, shot vidoe of an IED blowing a hole through an unarmored IDF jeep, on the Israeli side of the border. They contiued shooting as Hezbollah militants rran up to the gate in that section of fencing and lay a charge. In the 3.5 minutes that transpired they could have alerted the IDF.

Better yet, they could have used their own arms and authority to prevent the gruesomne murder or 3 young men [one of which was Israeli-Arab by the way]. Instead those men died gruesome deaths. You know, here in Israel, tonight in fact, they showed a here to fore unknown video of the operation taken by Hezbollah themselves and you can see the UN laughing in their villa.

In this video, simeltaneously shown on Israeli channel 10 and Lebanon's LBC [owned by Maronites for you curious few] you could see a Hezbollah goon walking on the leg of an Israeli soldier who had just suffered from a bomb blast. Thgose young men died torturous deaths. Any of you questiong the nature of Hezbollah should really watch this movie.
 
Moono: So, International Law does NOT label Hezbollah an outlaw organisation? Is that seriously your position?


America supports the Israeli economy? Right-Our whole GNP is 3 bil a year. Whatever. Sometimes this si just ridiculous.


ZAMB: Actually srael did alow them, at the time, on condition that they take an oath of allegiance. Most did not, so out they went and in stayed Israel. PLease start studying these issues.

"Backing." I call it intersecting geopolitical objectives.
 
Moono: So, International Law does NOT label Hezbollah an outlaw organisation? Is that seriously your position?

Absolutely. Please post any information to the contrary.

'Israel's' GDP is 3 billion ? American taxpayers shell out more than that to 'Israel' every year.
 
First off, I was joking on the 3 biillion, surely you could have seen that.

Secondly, International Law prohibits any militia not sanctioned by the state in which it resides. To say nothing of aiming for mnon-combatants, etc.
 
rachamim18 said:
Secondly, International Law prohibits any militia not sanctioned by the state in which it resides. To say nothing of aiming for mnon-combatants, etc.

Eh? I didn't think international law meant anything to you zionists? Or are there some bits that are OK and other bits that aren't (like all the UN resolutions Israel hasn't complied with?)

Aiming at non-combatants? Do you have the pot and kettle analogy ba Evreet?
 
Spion: What does International Law have to do with UN Resolutions?

As far as compliance...Why would Israel comply when it is a NON-binding Resolution authored by parties which never honoured the resolution that recognises Israel's Right to Exist? That is ludicrous.
 
rachamim18 said:
Spion: What does International Law have to do with UN Resolutions?

As far as compliance...Why would Israel comply when it is a NON-binding Resolution authored by parties which never honoured the resolution that recognises Israel's Right to Exist? That is ludicrous.

You tell me. You're the one talking about how Hizb flouts international law. IMO, there's no such thing as international law anyway, at least not in the sense in which law exists in any other sphere of life.

Oh, those non-binding ones. Perhaps they should be renamed just-for-fun UN resolutions
 
Spion: You are playing games. Again, what would Hezbollah flaunting International Law have to do with UN Resolutions. Please do explain the relationship.

"Just for fun." whatever you wish, they have no relevance to anyone but their authors so it does not matter.

"International LAw." IT is a new and opening field but it does certainly exist. what relevancy it has is questionable.
 
Shouldn't both sides respect International Law Rach? In this case we are talking about UN resolutions. Either both do, or neither should???...
 
GMarthews: In the respective charge, most definitely. As I have stated, International Law is highly interprative and not always up to the task. In the stated case though, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Israel is not exempt from the same norms it is asking of Hezbollah.

Still, one must respect the different bars. Hezbollah is illegal merely for its existence.
 
I don't think it is helpful to talk about relative legality as there are many who feel that Israel is illegal, and so you are again talking about personal interpretation.
 
rachamim18 said:
Spion: You are playing games. Again, what would Hezbollah flaunting International Law have to do with UN Resolutions. Please do explain the relationship.

No, I'm not playing games. You made reference to international law when you said: "International Law prohibits any militia not sanctioned by the state in which it resides. To say nothing of aiming for mnon-combatants, etc."

After seeing this I suggested that you citing international law seemed to be something you did when it suited you, given Israel's history of flouting UN resolutions.

The UN is one of the chief arenas for what passes as international law and its resolutions are part and parcel of that.

For that reason your appeals to international law appear hypocritical.
 
Spion: You are mistaken. The UN does not pass any International Laws. IT is a forum for dialog and does have many other branches as far as development,AID, and the like. Its Resolutions have nothing to do with law.

Again, Hezbollah is illegal by its mere existence and what Israel does or does not do is not changed by this.
 
And again, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Israel are in NO position to dictate who is illegal and who is not until they accept their role as oppressor and sort out the long standing problems they have caused, as well as the laws they have broken through ignoring the UN.
 
GMarthews: Israel is not dictating anybody or anything's illegality or legality. International Law does that. Hezbollah is a ste within a sovereign state and that is illegal. Israel's actions do not negate this truism.

Strength does not automatically translate into opression. You offer no examples of this so called oppression, just generalities. Israel is bad. Israel is cruel. Tell us how and I bet the propaganda will fall down.

The UN has NOTHING to do with law. Please understand this very basic concept. Secondly, Israel has only ignored NON-binding Resolutions.
 
rachamim18 said:
Spion: You are mistaken. The UN does not pass any International Laws. IT is a forum for dialog and does have many other branches as far as development,AID, and the like. Its Resolutions have nothing to do with law.

Again, Hezbollah is illegal by its mere existence and what Israel does or does not do is not changed by this.

What then is the forum for the creation and enforcement of international law?

If the UN is not the whole, it does seem to be intimately tied up with it http://www.un.org/law/

Why is Hizbullah more illegal than a state which has ignored countless resolutions?
 
The UN Charter is a central part of international law. UK readers may remember Kofi Annan being pressed on the legality of mad Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq on terrestrial television (by Jon Snow on Channel Four news, iirc).

Mr Annan repeatedly stated "The attack was contrary to the UN Charter" and Snow repeatedly rejoined "It was illegal, then?". Eventually, the Secretary General of the United Nations gave a one word answer... "Yes."
 
GMArthews: My English leaves something to be desired, granted, but the word is "state." Surely within its context you could have picked that up?

Spion: The Tribunal has that general responsibility, the UN merely brings disparate parties together for dialog [in a perfect world]. Your hyperlink offers a directory of UN departments devoted in someway to the cause but none of which have anything to do with enforcement.


Jonti: Sorry, but it means nothing. People can ask anything they wish of Annan [hopefully soon it will be if he needs help packing his bags] but that does not translate into reality.
 
That's unreasonable, i was NOT able to pick it up, and thus the very polite question. If you cannot be bothered to type carefully and are unconcerned as to what you write, then fine, but don't attack others for your own mistakes.
 
The point is, the attack contravened the terms of the UN Charter. That makes it illegal in international law, what we have of it.
 
GMarthews: If you consider that an attack, you have other issues you need to deal with.

Jonti: Please clarify with all this meandering, which attack?
 
rachamim18 said:
Surely within its context you could have picked that up?

You assume that i am deliberately lying, rather than assuming that i am asking the question because i truly could not understand, thus implying that your mistake was fatal, in that the sense you meant was not decipherable, which it was not.

You may worry about my issues (cheers for that), but your assumption says a lot about you, such as avoiding blame, and blaming others. Something you are continually doing in the Israel debate, where despite all the evidence you seem unable to understand why the Palestinians are upset at the invasion of the Israelis, and their persistant racism against them on what they consider to be their home, (which is fair enough as they were born there).

Furthermore you seem unwilling to make any compromise, even to the point of refusing to consider the inevitable one-state solution which both sides have caused through their continual intransigence.

One day maybe you will see the other side and see the reasons why the Palestinians feel so oppressed, and maybe even see that you would do the same in their position if your land was invaded by an outside force. Until that day you will continue to see a conspiracy against the Israelis (a conspiracy needs a step of faith, the same as many religions), and you will thus continue the oppression of the Palestinians which is so evident to everyone else here.

You insist that the Palestinians have nothing to complain about, but then try and fudge what the Israelis do by bringing some ridiculous historical precedent in which has no relevance when compared to the oppression happening NOW.

On a basic HUMAN level please try and empathise with a human who has been pushed into a small corner of his land by an invading force, and who refuses to cooperate with them because he believes that they should not be there. They take his land without permission, and his only recourse without betraying his beliefs is a suicide bombing.

You would do the same if your religion and land was oppressed in this way, whilst the rest of the world leaves you to your doom.

It is with no small amount of sadness that I point out that the Israelis intransigence will at the least lead to a one-state solution, and at the worst could lead to a desperate muslim leading a desperate nulear attack. This is what happens if you corner people on their own land. And it IS their land because a person's homeland is where they were born. You have one land with 2 people on it, and despite your conviction that they have equality of opportunity, it doesn't look like it from the outside, indeed it looks like the Israelis seeing how much they can oppress the Palestinians until the US says stop. If only they had the balls enough to do so.
 
Second thoughts forget about it Rach, you've already decided what you believe, and you are too busy proving yourself right to attempt to put yourself in someone else's place. Empathy? why bother!!
 
Back
Top Bottom