|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mosley wrote: |
| BB: Sorry about the "fancy name" bit: didn't mean to have "moral relativism" send you scrambling for a dictionary. No matter-you proved yourself again to be an apologist for terror and murder-all in the name of "anti-Zionism" which is the leftist code word for "anti-Semitism". |
Don't worry sweetie, I know exactly what it means, although a forgetful and senile old git like yerself probably needs his dusty old dictionary rather frequently these days, if only to help whack the cobwebs out his addled and dazed wits.. You would know all about apologism, being a zealous apologist for terror and murder in the name of expansionism. The thought of dead, dying, and horribly mutilated babies does little to put you off your meat and potatoes, so long as those babies are named Ali or Ismael, and not Yaniv or Isaac.
And people like yourself make the term 'anti-Semitism' less and less meaningful by wilfully substituting it to mean 'does not agree with the military aggression of Israel.' You do Jews a great disservice by devaluing the term in this manner.
| Quote: |
| You latte leftists love analogies: OK, here's a favourite leftist one: "Oh sure, he's a thief & murderer but oh, dear ... he had SUCH a tough childhood(insert the sound of bleeding via the heart here). Forgive him!" That's your "rationale" for supporting thugs like Hezbollah. |
Sorry, not a fan of latte myself. Prefer Earl Grey tea thanks. If, in your analogy, he's murdering for the sheer fun of it, throw him in the slammer and chuck away the key. However, if he's defending himself against another vicious murderer, who chose to attack him first so that he could steal his property, then, yes, I have some sympathy for the ficticious gentleman in your little analogy.
| Quote: |
| You "liberal" types like to trot out the UN when it serves your agenda. Funny, isn't it, how the left never mentions the fact that it was the UN which created the State of Israel. |
And if I had a dollar for every time I heard one of you "I-get-rock-hard-with-excitement-whenever-I-think-about-those-crazy
-liberals-hugging-trees-legalising-prostitution-marching-scantily-clad-through-the-streets-to-protest- war-drinking-too-much-
latte-and-generally-being-very-naughty" smugly make exactly that point, I'd have bought a nice plush apartment overlooking the harbour already. For a start, in those days the UN was mostly run by America and ex-colonial nations like Britain who didn't care too much about how unfair they were being to the indigenous people of the region. But it's late at night, and this loony leftie has a baby to feed, so we'll save that debate for another time.
| Quote: |
| You are an apologist for anti-Semitic murder & terror. |
I've already been contacted by other posters who suggest I should alert the mods about your behaviour. I'm guessing this must be the offending line. Frankly it makes you look like a zealous and hysterical old man who has lost all sense of perspective and propriety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cerulean808 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| John Pliger is a left wing fascist |
Are you stalking me Roo?  |
No ,just saying what ought to be said |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
You latte leftists love analogies: OK, here's a favourite leftist one: "Oh sure, he's a thief & murderer but oh, dear ... he had SUCH a tough childhood(insert the sound of bleeding via the heart here). Forgive him!" That's your "rationale" for supporting thugs like Hezbollah.
|
You know, this is quite ironic. This is often the rationale used by supporters of Israeli military aggression and expansionism. We are supposed to look the other way and excuse Israeli attrocities, because of how the jews have historically suffered, particularly in the holocaust. As if it is OK for one party to victimise, because they have been victimised themselves.
In fact, after 1967, it was often holocaust survivers themselves who were most appalled by the treatment meted out to the captive Arab population. They understood its significance and perniciousness.
I make no apologies for feeling more sympathy for the occupied than I do the occupier. One of them has a choice. Israel created Hezbollah, just as the Nazis created the French Resistance.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:36 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don' t know but the Palestinian side hasn't said formally that if Israel withdraws to 1967 borders that they won't attack.
Does that seem like a big sacrifice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I don' t know but the Palestinian side hasn't said formally that if Israel withdraws to 1967 borders that they won't attack.
Does that seem like a big sacrifice? |
Joo, this thread is about Hezbollah and Homosexuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Secondly, I have less sympathy for a democratic nation that chose to bring such terrible carnage to their neighbours. Hundreds of innocent Lebanonese children were killed or maimed for life because the vast majority of Israelis fancied a war (that they thought wouldn't come back to bite them on the bum). Perhaps this kind of thing might make them think twice before they chose the path of violence again. I hold the attacked to a lesser standard than the party choosing to attack. Whether it be a third world nation like Lebanon under a vicious attack by one fo the biggest military machines in the world, or whether it be a potential rape victim giving her attacker a good hard kick in the nuts. |
As I've stated before, BB, Hezbollah started the Summer War of '06. What territory of Lebanon's did Israel occupy in June of 2006?
Hezbollah was trying to seek relevance following its defeat through Lebanon's liberation (Hezbollah was for the Syrian occupation, remember?), and its Iranian and Syrian backers had their own hostile motives in urging the raid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| [quote. They fought to defend. They did not march into Israel and attack civillians in their villages. When they do that, I will heartily condemn them. . |
You are correct. They didn't march into Israel. Instead they launch rocket attacks on the civilian population. I still don't see you condemning them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I seem to recall;
a kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that precipitated the invasion.
July 9, 2006
Hezbollah kidnapped two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on the northern border in the midst of massive shelling attacks on Israel's north Wednesday morning. The IDF confirmed two of its soldiers were missing on the Lebanese border, Channel 10 TV reported.
Hezbollah fighters attacked two IDF armored Hummer jeeps patrolling along the border with gunfire and explosives. The Hezbollah fighters nabbed two of the soldiers and wounded others in the Hummers.
Two other Israelis were wounded when gunmen in Lebanon began pounding the IDF's Zarit position and other posts along the border before 9 A.M. According to Al-Manar, Hezbollah kidnapped the two IDF soldiers at 9:05 A.M. and transferred them to a safe location.
The two Israelis were wounded either by mortar shells or rockets that slammed into Moshav Zarit. One was lightly to moderately wounded and the second was lightly wounded. Two other people suffered from shock. The wounded were evacuated to a hospital in Nahariya.
IDF responded to the attacks from Lebanon with heavy artillery and tank fire. Al-Manar television reported that IDF artillery was pounding the fringes of the villages of Aita el-Shaab, Ramieh and Yaroun in the hills east of the coastal border port of Naqoura. Israel Air Force struck roads, bridges and Hezbollah guerrilla positions in southern Lebanon, Lebanese security officials said. The air raids were apparently intended to block any escape route for the guerrillas who may be taking the captured IDF soldiers to areas further removed from the border in order to prevent an Israeli rescue mission.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=737825 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| [quote. They fought to defend. They did not march into Israel and attack civillians in their villages. When they do that, I will heartily condemn them. . |
You are correct. They didn't march into Israel. Instead they launch rocket attacks on the civilian population. I still don't see you condemning them... |
So it's OK for Israel to deliberately bomb infrastructure and blast and fry hundreds of innocents and horribly maim hundreds more, but Big_Bird has to condemn Hezbollah for killing a few dozen civillians, after they had already endured a horrific onslaught on civillians by Israel bombers and after they gave full warning of what they would do, and after they had offered not to do it if Israel would stop their horrible bombardment of civillians. Doesn't anyone find it odd that Hezbollah are held to be the more heineous party here? Israel initiated the killing of civillians, and Hezbollah eventually responded, but not without having given much warning, and not without having offered not to do so if Israel would just stop killing Lebanese civillians. Wow. Isn't that like demanding that Mr X apologize for hacking off one of Mr Y's fingers, when Mr Y had already hacked off one of Mr X's hands!
Also, it was far more traumatic for the largely poor Shiite population. They didn't have the luxury of the underground bunkers Israelis (unless they were Arab Israelis - remember Arab Israelis made up a disproportionate portion of the casualties) enjoyed. Nor could they flee to the safety Tel Aviv. Lebanese fleeing to Beirut were constantly targetted by Israeli bombers as they made their journey, and once they got to Beirut they were still in terrible terrible danger. There was no respite for them.
I do not like that civillians were targetted on either side. Horrible. I felt sick every day of that war. I found the targetting of Irael personally worse because I have Israeli friends, but not one single Lebanese friend. I checked my email several times every day after Israel was targetted because I couldn't relax until I knew none of my friends were still in the aflicted areas. Of course I didn't like it. But I'm not going to condemn Hezbollah for something I would probably accept if I were in their shoes. That would make me an utter hypocrit, just as most of the people on this forum appear to be with regards to that matter. Imagine that France were superior in military power to Britain, and they began attacking us, bombing civillian structure and towns and cities and killing many civillians. If we (the British) had an organised resistance that could hit back at France, albeit in a more limited capacity, and give them a taste of their own medicine, than I would back it to the hilt. "Let them have a taste our pain," I would surely cry. Don't lie to me The_Conservative, and pretend you wouldn't feel the same way.
No, I did not like the targetting of Israel by Hezbollah, but how can I condemn then when they (the Lebanese) were under such terrible attack? If you were to describe this situation to anyone, without mentioning the name Israel or the name Hezbollah, very few of us would condemn it when faced with what the bigger party was doing.
Myself, I hope something good comes from Hezbollah's retaliation. The Israeli population (of whom the majority wholeheartedly supported that war) did not expect to be affected at home. They were happy to dish out death and horrific carnage on their neighbour, thinking that life would go on as usual in their own country. They soon lost their taste for the war when it came back to bite them on the bum. I hope now they've had a little taste of it themselves, they'll think twice about using violence unnecessarily. The only way to solve their problems in the longterm is though diplomacy and negotiation. This use of violence will only cause more problems for Israel in the long term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I seem to recall;
a kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that precipitated the invasion.
|
cbc, if you examined hostile neighbours around the globe, you'd find that border skirmishes are not unfrequent occurances. They almost never result in war.
I seriously doubt that Hezbollah predicted their actions would result in war.
From (haha) The Guardian
| Quote: |
Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation". |
Secondly, even Israeli officials have since admitted this was a planned war. They were biding their time for a pretext, and the border raid provided them with the excuse they'd been waiting for. This war was going to happen anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| [quote. They fought to defend. They did not march into Israel and attack civillians in their villages. When they do that, I will heartily condemn them. . |
You are correct. They didn't march into Israel. Instead they launch rocket attacks on the civilian population. I still don't see you condemning them... |
So it's OK for Israel to deliberately bomb infrastructure and blast and fry hundreds of innocents and horribly maim hundreds more, but Big_Bird has to condemn Hezbollah for killing a few dozen civillians, after they had already endured a horrific onslaught on civillians by Israel bombers and after they gave full warning of what they would do, and after they had offered not to do it if Israel would stop their horrible bombardment of civillians. Doesn't anyone find it odd that Hezbollah are held to be the more heineous party here? Israel initiated the killing of civillians, and Hezbollah eventually responded, but not without having given much warning, and not without having offered not to do so if Israel would just stop killing Lebanese civillians. Wow. Isn't that like demanding that Mr X apologize for hacking off one of Mr Y's fingers, when Mr Y had already hacked off one of Mr X's hands!
Also, it was far more traumatic for the largely poor Shiite population. They didn't have the luxury of the underground bunkers Israelis (unless they were Arab Israelis - remember Arab Israelis made up a disproportionate portion of the casualties) enjoyed. Nor could they flee to the safety Tel Aviv. Lebanese fleeing to Beirut were constantly targetted by Israeli bombers as they made their journey, and once they got to Beirut they were still in terrible terrible danger. There was no respite for them.
I do not like that civillians were targetted on either side. Horrible. I felt sick every day of that war. I found the targetting of Irael personally worse because I have Israeli friends, but not one single Lebanese friend. I checked my email several times every day after Israel was targetted because I couldn't relax until I knew none of my friends were still in the aflicted areas. Of course I didn't like it. But I'm not going to condemn Hezbollah for something I would probably accept if I were in their shoes. That would make me an utter hypocrit, just as most of the people on this forum appear to be with regards to that matter. Imagine that France were superior in military power to Britain, and they began attacking us, bombing civillian structure and towns and cities and killing many civillians. If we (the British) had an organised resistance that could hit back at France, albeit in a more limited capacity, and give them a taste of their own medicine, than I would back it to the hilt. "Let them have a taste our pain," I would surely cry. Don't lie to me The_Conservative, and pretend you wouldn't feel the same way.
No, I did not like the targetting of Israel by Hezbollah, but how can I condemn then when they (the Lebanese) were under such terrible attack? If you were to describe this situation to anyone, without mentioning the name Israel or the name Hezbollah, very few of us would condemn it when faced with what the bigger party was doing.
Myself, I hope something good comes from Hezbollah's retaliation. The Israeli population (of whom the majority wholeheartedly supported that war) did not expect to be affected at home. They were happy to dish out death and horrific carnage on their neighbour, thinking that life would go on as usual in their own country. They soon lost their taste for the war when it came back to bite them on the bum. I hope now they've had a little taste of it themselves, they'll think twice about using violence unnecessarily. The only way to solve their problems in the longterm is though diplomacy and negotiation. This use of violence will only cause more problems for Israel in the long term. |
If Hizzbollah is not out to destroy Israel then Israels' response was excessive however if Hizzbollah is out to destroy Israel then why ought Israel not hit Hizzbollah with everything it has?
f they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)
Hassan Nasrallah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Secondly, I have less sympathy for a democratic nation that chose to bring such terrible carnage to their neighbours. Hundreds of innocent Lebanonese children were killed or maimed for life because the vast majority of Israelis fancied a war (that they thought wouldn't come back to bite them on the bum). Perhaps this kind of thing might make them think twice before they chose the path of violence again. I hold the attacked to a lesser standard than the party choosing to attack. Whether it be a third world nation like Lebanon under a vicious attack by one fo the biggest military machines in the world, or whether it be a potential rape victim giving her attacker a good hard kick in the nuts. |
As I've stated before, BB, Hezbollah started the Summer War of '06. What territory of Lebanon's did Israel occupy in June of 2006?
Hezbollah was trying to seek relevance following its defeat through Lebanon's liberation (Hezbollah was for the Syrian occupation, remember?), and its Iranian and Syrian backers had their own hostile motives in urging the raid. |
Kuros, we've been through this before. Your assertion that Hezbollah started that war is very much disputed. Israel has practically admitted this war was planned well beforehand, and they were waiting for a suitable pretext for it to be executed.
Hezbollah were hoping to bring about a prisoner exchange. They were not planning to march into Tel Aviv.
I'm too lazy tonight to hunt around for relevant supporting sources, so I'll just stick with an article I've just quoted in my previous post:
From the nasty Guardian:
| Quote: |
But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.
On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".
A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive. |
As to your question of what territory did Israel occupy in 2006, they still occupy the Sheba Farms, which even Syria acknowledges was an integral part of South Lebanon. But this is a distraction, taking us away from the objective of this thread. We are talking about Hezbollah. We are not confined by the OP to the recent war. I was discusing the rise of Hezbollah, and the reason for their creation: the occupation of Southern Lebanon. Why did Hezbollah become so popular among the population? Because they were the ones getting real results. Other resistance groups (largely of a secular nature) were not successful. Part of the reason Hezbollah were able to be so ruthless was the fact of their hardline religious doctrine. The OP is concerned with Hezbollah's religious teachings and beliefs and why some of us do not demonise this particular group, despite their religious mantra. It's not concerned necessarily with the recent war.
cbc asks how we can support Hezbollah, when they have such a harsh view of homosexuality. I asked the question what does he mean by supporting Hezbollah? I don't consider myself a supporter of Hezbollah. I don't like their mix of politics and religion. However, I do feel support for the general population that gave rise to them. I empathise with the Shiite Lebanese, and Hezbollah, whether I like it or not, is currently an integral part of their present culture. Why do I not condemn the Shiite population for supporting a resistance group whose hardline and chauvenistic interpretation of Islam I personally find abhorrent? Because when I put myself in their shoes (thank heavens I have never ever stood in their shoes and can barely imagine their suffering) I understand why a group like Hezbollah is so popular. And I understand (from having studied the ground conditions of the past few decades) why Hezbollah had to be so ruthless to be sucessful. And I do feel sympathy for many individual members of Hezbollah. These are young men from a war-torn background, who have seen and experienced horror that hopefully you nor I ever will, Kuros. And their primary reason for joining an organisation like Hezbollah is to defend their land, their people and their families. They are not joining up so they can persecute homosexuals. And only the craziest of them would join up hoping to execute some madcap plan for innihilating all of Israel. That's just nuts. I have much sympathy for the men on the ground. All of this doesn't mean I like their leadership, or that I approve of Hezbollahs ambitions or religious doctrine. I don't give a toss for the leadership, frankly.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:56 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
BIG BIRD SAID:
| Quote: |
| As to your question of what territory did Israel occupy in 2006, they still occupy the Sheba Farms, which even Syria acknowledges was an integral part of South Lebanon |
Syria does not accept Sheba farms as being part of Lebanon in fact they don't even think that Lebanon is a seperate nation.
| Quote: |
Lebanese media reaction
A Lebanese newspaper, however, described the land deed of one Shebaa resident as "handwritten and signed on a yellowing piece of paper in pencil and ink." Moreover, it is quite common for Lebanese to own land in Syria, and vice versa.[19]
According to an Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, most Lebanese, in fact, had never heard or read about the Farms, even in their national school curricula.[20] "The issue over these farms was created to justify resistance operations from Lebanon after the UN had created the Blue Line following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. The Shebaa farms were placed inside Syrian territory. It should be noted that Syria, which claims that the farms are Lebanese, has not presented a single document to the UN to prove it. More than that, Syria refuses to demarcate its borders with Lebanon."[ |
| Quote: |
Syrian position
Syria has at times supported Lebanon's claim that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon and not Syrian territory at the UN and in official government press releases. But at times it has made contrary statements.
In August 1972, Syrian president Hafez al-Assad said, "Syria and Lebanon are a single country."[22] Syria does not maintain an embassy in Beirut, which would indicate recognition of Lebanese independence.[22] Similarly, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University, Daniel Pipes (Editor of Middle East Quarterly),[22] and others have written about Syria's failure to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon. In addition, Lebanon does not appear as an independent state in maps in Syrian textbooks, but rather as part of Greater Syria.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
The Shebaa Farms also appear as part of Syria on the large-scale map on the Syrian Ministry of Tourism's website.[30]
In 2002 Israeli officials noted that Syria treated the area as its own over the years. They pointed to the fact, for example, that a Syrian census in 1960 included the residents of the Farms.
On May 16, 2000, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouq al-Shara, indicated to Annan in a telephone conversation that Syria supported Lebanon's claim.[31] This was made public in the UN Press Release SC/6878 of 18 June 2000 which stated "Concerning the Shab'a farmlands, both Lebanon and Syria state that this land belongs to Lebanon."[3]
Support for the Lebanese claim was reiterated in January 21, 2006, by the President of Syria in a speech before the convention of the Arab Lawyers Union in Damascus and translated into English by SANA, the official state news agency of Syria. President Bashar al-Assad stated that there are two legal requirements for demarcating the border: first, the complaint must be registered with the UN; and second, engineers must precisely define the border. As neither Syria nor Lebanon have access to the area, Assad argues that resolution is waiting on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory.[32]
On August 15, 2006, however, Syria said it would not object to the deployment in Shebaa of UNIFIL soldiers, but would not allow the Lebanese Army to patrol or set up positions there.[citation needed]
In an interview with Assad reported by SANA on August 24, 2006, Assad flatly refused demarcation of the Syrian/Lebanese border near Shebaa Farms before a withdrawal of Israeli troops.[33] |
The Shebaa farms is just an excuse for Hizzbollah to keep hitting Israel. and if Israel released the Prisoners then Hizzbollah would look for another excuse to hit Israel .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms
| Quote: |
| Lebanese politician Walid Jumblatt has stated that Lebanon has no valid claim to the Shebaa farms area.[15] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
[. Imagine that France were superior in military power to Britain, and they began attacking us, bombing civillian structure and towns and cities and killing many civillians. If we (the British) had an organised resistance that could hit back at France, albeit in a more limited capacity, and give them a taste of their own medicine, than I would back it to the hilt. "Let them have a taste our pain," I would surely cry. Don't lie to me The_Conservative, and pretend you wouldn't feel the same way.
Actually I wouldn't...I'm not British. And if the British targeted civilians whereas France targeted military sites then I'd be all for hitting the British harder and harder until they give up.
Myself, I hope something good comes from Hezbollah's retaliation. .
So do I...that they are utterly destroyed
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I haven't got time to look up sources, not tonight anyhow. But there are documents that show that when the colonial powers were carving things up, the Sheeba farms were wrongly shown on the (French drawn) map as being part of Syria. There are documents that show the French were aware of the error at the time, and had been considering correcting the problem. The (now exiled) inhabitants of the Sheeba farms were ethnically and culturally aligned with the Shiite Lebanese, and in practical terms the Sheeba farms functioned as a part of South Lebanon, even if the maps showed it being part of Syria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
