"what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop..."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


"International community" is wrong. Check lom's post to find out Shebaa was part of Lebanon occupied by Syria until it got into Israeli hands

Yes, check my post. In fact it shows it was part of Lebanon, then it was occupied by Syria, and then in 1967 it was occupied by Israel. And that UN resolutions calling for the exchange of Israeli occupied territory for peace treated it as territory Israel had occupied from Syria, NOT from Lebanon. And that neither Lebanon nor Syria raised the issue of Shebaa farms UNTIL Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. And that Dinodoc is correct, the UN DID certify the Israeli withdrawl as complete.

To which Herresons only reply is that the UN is controlled by the US. I wonder if Dinodoc believes that?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


The quote You've attached yourself proves wrong his claims. He also called president Al-Asad "a terrorist".
In democracy, unbiased politicians do not use such descriptions of leaders of foreign states.

Unbiased politicians?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


First of all, Heresson, not Herreson.
Secondly, it's not a troll. It's the root of the conflict, that Israel and America are quick to forget.

Its been debated here at nauseum, and minds are unlikely to be changed. Ergo it adds nothing to the current debate, and only distracts from it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

And tell me, if Jews wanted only to defend what they were given by UN, what on earth were their militia doing in Jerusalem, which was far away from territory they got?

what were they doing? they were defending the rather substantial Jewish population of Jerusalem. I didnt say they were defending only the area allocated them under the partition plan - the Arabs had already rejected the partition plan, including its application to Jerusalem.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Its been debated here at nauseum, and minds are unlikely to be changed. Ergo it adds nothing to the current debate, and only distracts from it.

No. It is essential for the debate

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what were they doing? they were defending the rather substantial Jewish population of Jerusalem. I didnt say they were defending only the area allocated them under the partition plan - the Arabs had already rejected the partition plan, including its application to Jerusalem.

It's the partition plan that gave Israel its existance. If they deny it...
Why couldn't they just evacuate from Jerusalem? It's not like they lived there for centuries...
Also, somehow they were very well prepared for this defence, somehow large part of their militia and weapons were found on the territories that they knew wouldn't be given to them...
Israeli Jews wanted entire Palestine from the beginings. And many still want it. the only reason they haven't annexed it all is their mild respect for po and, most of all, their fear of so many arab citizens. So, instead, they prefer eternal occupation of it - it gives them all the advantages of having it and more, and none of the disadvantages like having to care about Arabs like for Jews or give them representation in the parliament.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


No. It is essential for the debate

No, its not. Almost every non-muslim state accepts Israels right to exist, as do several muslim states. And obviously Israel isnt going to negotiate on the basis of giving up its right to exist. No solution to the problem of Lebanon is going to be reached by denying Israels right to exist.

Ergo, this is a distraction.

I suppose resorting to distraction to defend the position of Syria and Hezbollah, is understandable.

as for your statements about 1948, they are lies and distortions, but this is not the place to discuss them.

[Heresson]

If You accuse me of lies, prove it, otherwise You are not only not reliable, but also rude. Your claim I cause dustraction to defend S and H is a rude false accusation as well.

Like it or not, what Israelis, Americans and the West in general were doing up till now is very important for understanding and solving the problem.
But Israel and America does not (want to) recognise that, and that's why the conflict goes on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
If You accuse me of lies, prove it, otherwise You are not only not reliable, but also rude. Your claim I cause dustraction to defend S and H is a rude false accusation as well.

Like it or not, what Israelis, Americans and the West in general were doing up till now is very important for understanding and solving the problem.
But Israel and America does not (want to) recognise that, and that's why the conflict goes on.

You know very well that the events of 1948 have been debated ad nauseum on this forum. Your attempt to draw out a discussion on the details of those issues in a thread about what needs to be done now, is rude to this forum.

[Heresson]

Israel and America are countries without a past in comparison to others, and perhaps because of that they have little respect for history. It is more important for today's problems than You'd ever imagine.
Also, I'd like to remind You that Syria is involved in the current conflict, and that its current statement is that it wants to settle the matters of ME as a whole - which means that it will only back off its support for Hezbollah is Israel returns Shebaa, Golan and what remained of Palestine. then, it says, we can have peace and the conflict of ME is finally solved. As long as I doesn't have peace with Syria, it will not have peace in Lebanon, so it
s an important matter.
And that's just one of the reasons why the previous history and palestinian issues are important for this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
Israel and America are countries without a past in comparison to others, and perhaps because of that they have little respect for history. It is more important for today's problems than You'd ever imagine.
Also, I'd like to remind You that Syria is involved in the current conflict, and that its current statement is that it wants to settle the matters of ME as a whole - which means that it will only back off its support for Hezbollah is Israel returns Shebaa, Golan and what remained of Palestine. then, it says, we can have peace and the conflict of ME is finally solved. As long as I doesn't have peace with Syria, it will not have peace in Lebanon, so it
s an important matter.
And that's just one of the reasons why the previous history and palestinian issues are important for this thread.

I suggest you look at the American struggle for independence, and the way its debates covered issues of English constitutionalism and law going back to Magna Carta. I wont bite on your troll about the antiquity of Israel.

Yes, its obvious that Syria wants to use Hezbollah as leverage to get back the Golan,(leaving aside that they could have gotten the Golan back in return for a complete peace, and could still get it back today) even as it maintains complete quiet along the Golan. Syria is happy to fight Israel, to the last Lebanese.

The UN, in UNSC Res 1559, decided that was not an acceptable approach. If Syria and Hezbollah are unwilling to deal with the problem of Lebanon, INCLUDING Shebaa Farms, until all other issues are settled, I doubt that the international community will accept that, and I doubt that the majortiy of Lebanese will accept that. So that positions stands or falls with the material strength of Hezbollah, and right now thats in decline.

[lord of the mark]

nm

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In some cases they actually transferred them from one area under Israeli control to another area under Israeli control, which hardly matches with a plan to use expulsion to change the demographic balance.

Nor was there such a plan by the FRY in 1999. There was plenty of shrill propaganda claiming such a plan existed, but no plan.

Destruction of part of your state is still something to get defensive about. I wonder how relaxed Israel would be if its opponents 'only' wanted to expel all Jews from Jerusalem for ever, and to destroy all traces of Jewish civilisation there? I expect they wouldn't want to let that happen, and nor did Serbia want it to happen to Kosovo.

It's worth remembering that Serbia's on-the-ground opponents were largely based in an adjacent semi-broken state whose government did not exercise full control over its territory. At no point did Serbia attack Albania.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It's worth remembering that Serbia's on-the-ground opponents were largely based in an adjacent semi-broken state whose government did not exercise full control over its territory. At no point did Serbia attack Albania.

For how long had Albania openly hosted the KLA, without the slightest intent to ever dispute that use of their territory?

When did any major representative of the Albanian government declare that the KLA was part of the Albanian government?

What non-broken state was using Albania and the KLA as a proxy for its aggression against Serbia?

The two situations aren't comparable politically any more than they are comparable on the ground.