Hezbollah, Israel take grudge to courtroom

[bemildred]

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Eight months after the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon the two foes took their battle to the courtroom on Tuesday as three captured Shiite militants fought for legal protection as prisoners of war.

Israel is seeking to brand the militants captured by its troops in southern Lebanon as "illegal combatants," the same legal classification used by the United States to deny Guantanamo Bay inmates due process in American courts.

The militants' Israeli lawyers, however, say they deserve to be protected by the same international treaties that apply to prisoners of war.

At a preliminary hearing on Tuesday, the defence argued that Hezbollah acted as an agent of the Lebanese government while the prosecution countered that Hezbollah did not reflect Lebanese government policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070410/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraellebanon

[The Magistrate]

1. The Argument Hezbollah Is An Agent Of the Lebanese Government, My Friend

Would have a number of implications the persons pressing it would probably not want to see in action. Among other things, it would make the Lebanese government reponsible for the actions of Hezbollah, which removes the popular 'don't attack Lebanon for what Hezbollah did' line of arguement entirely.

The fact is that Hezbollah prisoners do meet Geneva criteria for an "illegal combatant", in that they are members of a private organization that routinely violates the laws of war. The only thing really available to be adjudicated is whether they are actual members of that body, and actually participated personally in violations of the laws of war. Neither of these things can be declared by fiat, of course: the Conventions require that this be determined by a method the power holding such prisoners would employ in judging its own soldiers.

[bemildred]

2. I think you put your finger on the spot there.

You know my views on the "Laws of War" and denial of due process to anyone. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[The Magistrate]

3. It Is An Old Point Of Mine, Sir

"People need to think things all the way through" is one of my mottoes.

You may recall the old F.A.L.N. people here, and their insistence on being treated as prisoners of war instead of law-breakers when captured? It always puzzle me a little why the government did not simply say, 'Fine, you're prisoners of war' and put them behind wire somewhere in Arizona for the duration, without bothering with trial, and further, commence thereafter to simply shoot F.A.L.N. members rather than bother with apprehending them, since to be a prisoner of war one must be a soldier in the field in time of war, and if anyone ever approached a pill-box or a trench-line with the intent of executing a search or arrest warrant, rather than the occupants of the hostile position, the doing has escaped my notice....

[bemildred]

9. I have just read Thucydides.

I was most interested in the modernity of his view of things and his very good attempt to be a true historian at such an early date. He is much better in that regard than Herodotus, or so I thought.

But that all aside, it makes a marked contrast with modern blather about "international law" and the "laws of war". The fact is the winners make the law in war, and the losers do not. The only sound reason to support such rules of conduct is because they will protect you too, in due course, and all the rest is blather; and if that is true, one ought not be making exceptions, lest one become an "exception" oneself some day.

[Shaktimaan]

Well, either way they sure can't be denied due process.

and by that I mean a trial or tribunal. Not a criminal trial designed for civilians. But I am having trouble seeing how they could be POWs. They are all entitled to individual trials regardless, but Hezbollah isn't a signatory to the Convention nor do any of its followers follow the rules of it.

They can be held as prisoners but I don't see how they can be entitled to POW status or the inherent benefits.

[bemildred]

74. It appears to me that the intent here is to try them as criminals.

Not the sort of thing going on at Gitmo. If I read it right, if they were POWs, they could not try them as criminals, at least not for participating in the war, as such. So there would not be any denial of due process here either way, that was a reference from the OP to Gitmo.

Edit: the very fact that this issue is being disputed in court reflects the presence of due process, it is an example of due process. The question would be whether they should be tried under Israeli law for participation in the war, which appears to me to be a bad idea.

[bemildred]

30. The money quotes:

From the bottom of the article:

"On the day that the two Israeli soldiers were taken -- last July 12 -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accused Lebanon of an attack against the state of Israel," the lawyer for Srour said.

Lebanese president Emile Lahoud, meanwhile, "constantly said during the war that Hezbollah belongs to the national resistance and is complementary to the army."

Defence attorneys also argue that the captured Hezbollah militants deserve the same treatment as Israeli soldiers held in Lebanon.

"I don't think that anybody (in Israel) disputes the fact that the two Israeli soldiers are prisoners of war. This is why the government must give (Hezbollah militants) this same status," Ben Nathan said.

I don't see any allegations that these particular people did anything illegal. It seems to be based on their membership in Hizbullah.

[The Magistrate]

37. Interesting, Sir

The statements by the national leaders strike me as mere boiler-plate, without any legal signifigance. Someone would have to show evidence the government of Lebanon directed military actions by Hezbollah to sustain the claim it was an agency of that government.

My suspicion is that if the people held by Israel were treated as the captured Israeli soldiers Hezbollah holds are, the outcry would be deafening, and however badly these Hezbollah people are being treated now might be, their condition would greatly worsen. They would certainly not be anywhere near a court and a team of defence lawyers.

It is quite possible a reasonable court might rule these people are entitled to prisoner of war status, and it would not bother me in the slightest if that were the decision of a court, my own view that they probably are properly classed as illegal combatants notwithstanding.

[bemildred]

47. Well, I would agree that the welfare of the Israeli prisoners, their release

best of all, would be the thing I would want to address, rather than categorizing these fellows in the OP correctly, or litigating their cases in Israeli courts, or any of the rest of this, at the possible expense of those captives welfare.

[IsisDawn]

4. What if it was the U.S.?

So if we are invaded by a foreign power and our army is not defending us if the U.S. citizens fight they are illegal combatants?

So basically no one on the entire planet is allowed to fight unless the belong to an already established military????

How would it be posssible to overthrow corrupt governments?

Basically all the people of the world become powerless.

[The Magistrate]

6. It Depends On How They Do It, Ma'am

The Gerneva Accords certainly recognize the root legitimacy of partisan bodies, but requires them to adhere to the same rules as state forces.

[IsisDawn]

8. Seems like the rules favor the military

I'm sorry but I didn't get that memo of the correct rules of combat. What if one side is armed to the teeth by superpowers and the other basically has some rocks and dynamite????

It's absurd to think citizens can fight conventional warfare NOT BEING IN THE MILITARY AND ALL!

[The Magistrate]

10. The Rules Do Not Require Conventional Warfare, Ma'am

They require that attacks be aimed at combatant targets, not at non-combatants, and that non-combatants not be used as shields during during operations.

[IsisDawn]

12. Aren't there unexploded cluster bombs all over Lebanon?

Hospitals, apartments, schools, homes, bridges...all bombed?

How many women and children were killed or injured by the Iraelis? And how many women and children were killed by the Lebanese?

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is Rather Beside The Point, Ma'am

Of the matter you raised, which was a question of whether bodies of civilians in arms were barred from warfare. It is not of sufficient interest to me to engage it at this point.

[IsisDawn]

18. My point is neither the civilians or the military followed the

"rules of combat" you cling to.

[The Magistrate]

22. Quite Possibly They Did Not, Ma'am

Some of the gaudier charges pressed against Israel during and shortly after the combat have disolved into nonesense, but as a general rule, neither side always abides by the rules. But the offenses of another do not wipe out one's own: you will not get very far in court with a defense that amounts to 'Hey, other people burgle houses besides me!" If your complaint is that states stack the deck somewhat against non-state actors, that is true enough, but akin to complaining of the wetness of water and the vastness of the Ocean: it is part of the structure, and while there are states, will not suffer alteration.

[msmcghee]

11. It is reasonable to wonder why, when one side . .

. . is armed to the teeth with modern weapons and the other has dynamite and rocks they would attack the larger force.

Is it perhaps because their goal is not a military but a political victory?

In a world where much power is vested in civilians through the agency of their democratic governments, perhaps it's easier to depend on the naivety of those civilians - rather than hard-headed diplomacy and negotiation - to achieve one's goals.

Why submit to a process that by its nature requires compromise - when Allah promises a complete victory to his believers, no matter the odds? Especially when Allah condemns those who compromise with infidels.

[IsisDawn]

14. Is your advice then that no one in history or in the future

should fight unless they can win? There is no reason other than assured victory to fight????

You seem way more educated in history than me and I am sure you can think of many examples in which small groups have turned the tables on a much larger force....

All people have the right to fight for what they believe in, in my opinion.

[The Magistrate]

24. The Question Of Whether People Have A Right To Something, Ma'am

Is independent from the question of whether it is the right course for them to take in a particular set of circumstances.

[IsisDawn]

28. Who decides this rightness?

I am on no side here. I think it's crazy and stupid. 2 Sides so blinded by religion they kill each other. But Israel is a super power and an occupier and should show some restraint, compassion and some compromise.

We all get it okay, the Palestinians and Lebanese live at the mercy of Israel. Leave them some dignity. Pounding these people into the dirt will NEVER lead to peace.

[The Magistrate]

29. An Odd Combination, Ma'am

Of participants, and the eventuating course of events, decides what is or was not wise....

[msmcghee]

34. I think you should re-read my post. In it I have . .

. . offered possible answers to all your questions. And you would see that in no way did I suggest that the Palestinians or Hizb'allah were not seeking victory.

[msmcghee]

42. You say that . . .

. . "All people have the right to fight for what they believe in, in my opinion."

I'm sure every war in human history was started by someone fighting for what they believed in - which doesn't say much for your peace credentials.

But, what you say is certainly true insofar as people have the capacity to make their own decisions and act on them of their own free will.

However, if what they believe in, and what the choose to fight for - is the destruction of another state that has not attacked them - then they'd be wise to weigh the possibilities carefully. If they don't, their own destruction could be the result - and most peace loving people would not shed too many tears over it.

[IsisDawn]

46. I know you aren't implying the complete destruction of Lebanon

is or could ever be justified? And peace loving people won't shed tears? You are clearly crazy. Fine whatever kill each other start a whole world war. Hey at least home-made rockets won't be launched anymore.

That'll teach them. Great plan.

[msmcghee]

50. Well, you just said that people have a right to fight for . . .

. . what they believe in.

I'm sure Israel does not "believe in" the destruction of Lebanon - because it is certainly in Israel's power to cause that if they wished.

But, if they changed their mind - then why would you object? They would be fighting for what they "believed in" - by definition - wouldn't they?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

56. No, I'm telling you that if you believe that . .

. . "people have the right to fight for what they believe in" - then one possible result of that is genocide.

The Nazi's believed in a world under their domination - free of Jews. They believed in it and they fought for it. At the cost of many millions of lives of innocent people worldwide. Fortunately for you and I, they lost. But, would you defend them now for "fighting for what they believed in"?

The Palestinians (at least those who call the shots there) believe in a ME free of Jews and they have been fighting for that for over 60 years now. And they are losing - as they have been for all that time.

I find the death and destruction of that war appalling. I think of all the happy Palestinian and Israeli lives that have been cut short by that terrible violence. I blame the side that is fighting for what they believe in - the side that believes in a ME free of Jews. I do not blame the Jews who are defending themselves.

Unlike you, I do not believe that people have the right to fight for what they believe in - if what they believe in is the domination of or genocide of other people.

I believe that violence is only justified in defense. I think you will find in history that it is the side "that claims to be fighting for what they believe in" that usually starts wars.

People who "believe in" peace normally don't attack others to get it.

[IsisDawn]

63. Clarification

Sorry I brought up the genocide topic certainly didn't mean to offend anyone (it was deleted). Okay so let me clarify what I was trying to say: it is my observation that as per the topic of the thread during the War with Lebanon which was basically against Hezbollah that when Israel invaded them Hezbollah had the "right" to defend themselves against the military forces trying to kill them.

My only point is citizens in every country have the right to defend themselves. I don't believe there is ever a reason to use weapons of mass destruction or cluster bombs.

It seems you are trying to apply my right of citizens to defend themselves to the extreme involving a military force with super weapons killing thousands of innocent people to defend themselves against some terrorist group with rocket launchers they can't even aim right most of the time.

Maybe I'm wrong?????

[The Magistrate]

67. That Right Of Self-Defense, Ma'am, Works In All Directions

Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah. Once the invasion commenced, certainly Hezbollah fighetrs had every right to defend their lives. But it also remains the case that had Hezbollah not engaged in attacks against Israel, after Isarel's withdrawl from Lebanon some years ago, there would be no need to hash this out at all, and no one would have been killed either in Lebanon or the north of Israel.

[msmcghee]

70. Let me say that I appreciate your desire to . .

. . see an end to violence. Perhaps I've been hanging around this world for long enough (just about 65 years now) that I have arrived at some more realistic ways to achieve that goal - which we both share. Or, perhaps I have become cynical in my old age and with the clear eyes of youth you can see what is obscured to me.

I would only ask you to consider that the world his full of those who believe that their own needs justify the killing of others. They build religions and vast cultures to affirm the justice and glory that fulfilling those needs through bloody conquest will bring them. And they build whatever armies they can to carry it out.

The possibility that there could be a way other than war to deal with this aggressive and acquisitive side of human nature as expressed through global geo-politics is fairly new. It's called the UN. (Or at least the UN tried to fulfill that role at one time.)

In 1947 Israel agreed to abide by the new UN (non-violent) rules for states seeking borders and self-determination. Arabs in in region did not. There is much propaganda out there bemoaning how unfair it all was (the Partition Plan) to the Palestinians. You should read the UN debates at the time. It was an anguishing process. And read some unbiased pre-partition history about the area that is now Israel. I think you will find that it was a difficult problem with each side having many just claims to make in its own interests.

I have come to the conclusion that the decision was probably the best that could have resulted at the time and under the conditions that prevailed.

But, even if you come to a different conclusion - now that 60 years and many thousands of deaths have gone by - you must decide if you want a world where anyone who believes in something has a right to attack others to get it - or not. Will it be war - or compromise and negotiation?

I won't try to change your mind on that - but I would ask you to think about the ultimate consequences of your conclusion.

[Shaktimaan]

71. to be fair though...

you must decide if you want a world where anyone who believes in something has a right to attack others to get it - or not. Will it be war - or compromise and negotiation?

I won't try to change your mind on that - but I would ask you to think about the ultimate consequences of your conclusion.

I don't think that this is what she meant. I'm not sure, but I think she possibly believed that Israel attacked first or that the Lebanese were somehow being oppressed by Israel and what she really meant was that people have the right to fight for a just cause, such as ridding oneself from the yoke of oppression.

But I'm guessing, correct me if I am wrong. It seemed like she was getting Lebanon and Palestine mixed up a bit so I made an assumption.

[msmcghee]

72. It seems to me that the general ideas . .

. . I discussed in my post would apply equally to Lebanon or the Palestinian territories.

Once two sides engage in violent conflict - of course both sides must commit themselves to victory - because defeat can mean death.

It is for that reason that I place so much importance on the initial decision to attack another to get what you want - as the only decision in conflict that has any chance of deserving a pure moral judgment. It is the only decision in violent conflict that, if made morally, can avoid the death and destruction that is sure to follow.

I'm sorry that this medium is so inadequate for expressing the complex ideas that must be grappled with in order to understand and discuss this conflict at any useful level. I'll keep trying to improve my communication.

[Shaktimaan]

73. your posts are the most articulate on this forum

don't apologize to me.

[msmcghee]

75. Thanks, but I wasn't exactly apologizing . .

. . as much as lamenting the facts of life - in a forum. But, I do appreciate your input. Writing posts here sometimes reminds me of trying to steer a bicycle when the handle bar bolt is really loose - while my detractors scatter rocks in the roadway. B-)

(I just noticed the spell checker doesn't work on the title bar.)

[Shaktimaan]

77. funny.

I was kidding.

[breakaleg]

5. Israel engaged in a war with all of Lebanon. It seems like they want it both ways.

[The Magistrate]

7. Israel Engaged Hezbollah, Sir

Hezbollah could be found through-out Lebanon, and elements of the country's infrastructure were important to Hezbollah's operations.

[breakaleg]

13. Come on. The damage they inflicted in northern Lebanon in no way was limited to Hezbollah.

And Israel itself called it the second Lebanon war.

[The Magistrate]

15. The Name Is Appropriate, Sir, That Being the Location Where It Was Fought

The name does not define the enemy: the War of Jenkin's Ear comes to mind, for example....

[IsisDawn]

16. So by your post you say Israel declared War on Hezbollah

but now the "War" is over the captured Hezbollah should be combatants not prisoners of war?

If you single out a group of civilians declare war on them you legitimize them as a warring force therefore they are prisoners of war not enemy combatants. It doesn't make sense. By your logic they should have lined up for the firing squad with no Resistance?????

[The Magistrate]

19. Hezbollah Attacked Israel, Ma'am

No one declared war on anyone: the Israeli military responded to the attack by Hezbollah with a campaign calculated to badly damage, if not destroy, that organization. How successful or otherwise that effort was is not yet clear. The matter of whether the prisoners in question are prisoners of war under the Geneva Accords or illegal combatants turns on the adjudication of the character of the organization they belong to, and of their own personal conduct. My view is that Hezbollah is a criminal organization under the Accords, but others will decide the question in this case.

Your closing sentence is, put bluntly, confusing. It could be read as indicating belief there was some fixed intention of Israel to simply enter Lebanon and massacre people point-blank. The fact is that, had Hezbollah not attacked Israel, no lethal action whatever north of the border between the two countries would have been undertaken last summer by the Israeli military.

[IsisDawn]

21. Badly damage if not destroy the ENTIRE country.......

I mean come on seriously. How many Israelis have died from these misguided rockets Hezbollah shoots??? It would take them a million years to equal the devastation the Israelis unleashed upon them.

[The Magistrate]

23. A Million Years Is A Very Long Time, Ma'am

My guess is it would take perhaps five or six years at full bore to match the tolls from the other direction. But the totals are utterly immaterial; the intent is what counts.

The facts remain that the United Nations had directed Hezbollah disarm and it did not, but rather continued military operations against a powerful state. The Lebanese government had an obligation to prevent its territory being used as a base for these operations, and did not do so. Whether this waas because it was incapable of preventing them, or did not desire to, is immaterial to the fact that it did not prevent them. The state attacked had every right to act in defense of its people and territory.

[IsisDawn]

25. Here in the U.S. we have all kinds of crazy groups...

they bomb abortion clinics, blow up buildings, send Anthrax in the mail, send bombs through the mail to financial intuitions, terrorist sleeper cells, religious cults that stockpile weapons, KKK, etc etc etc.

The United States cannot rid itself of groups intent of doing harm so how on earth would you expect Lebanon too???

Should the U.S. be bombed back to the stone age? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. It takes time patience education and LOVE to change hearts and minds.

[The Magistrate]

27. Apples And Oranges Are A Good Deal Closer, Ma'am

Than what you have tried comparing to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If such a group launched attacks against a foreign country from U.S. soil, and the U.S. government took no steps to halt them, the country attacked would be perfectly within its rights to attack that body, and whatever infrastructure materially contributed to its successful operation on U.S. soil. Sovereign states have responsibilities and obligations where their own territory is concerned, and funk them at their peril.

[IsisDawn]

31. So if an Al Queda sleeper cell in the U.S. bombs

Russia, Russia has every right to bomb the United States? Because WE CAN"T FIND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They blend in just like Hezbollah!!!!

[IsisDawn]

32. My point is there is NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY

any government can police itself the way the Israelis are demanding Lebanon to police it's citizens. The form of government Lebanon would have to install to insure all the Hezbollah members and sympathizers are killed is just a crazy crazy crazy crazy impossible demand.

[The Magistrate]

36. Nonesense, Ma'am

Governments prevent the existance of sizeable armed militia bodies attacking other states from their territory routinely. In most instances where such a body exists, and carries out such actions, it is in fact fostered by the government in question as a matter of its policy towards the state attacked. No one demands Hezbollah members and sympathizers all be killed: what is demanded is that they disarm, as the United Nations directed, and cease violence against the state of Israel.

[IsisDawn]

38. You are clearly prejudiced and clinging to whatever makes you

feel right. The US and the Afghanistan government have been trying to get rid of the Taliban for 5 years THEY CAN"T DO IT. In Irag, Afghanistan and Pakistan Al Quaeda cannot be defeated or found. What makes you think Lebanon can do it? How can they do it? It would be a police state. You are saying crazy impossible things to justify what Israel has done.

You know the likelyhood of a civil war in Lebanon if the government turns on it's people? I know you do, so what's your problem? You want all these people to die because some ancient book has a prophecy in it?????

You know I feel sorry for all of you. That you will fill your lives with death and destruction instead of devoting it to peace.

It's sad and I am so glad I am not involved in this crazy mess filled with hard headed hate filled people.

[The Magistrate]

48. Prejudiced, Ma'am? In What Way Could You Demonstrate That?

It does not matter whether the Lebanese government can neutralize Hezbollah, or risks civil war by attempting to neutralize Hezbollah, or simply can do nothing about Hezbollah, or even actively co-operates with and assists Hezbollah: the fact remains that Hezbollah is an armed body that carried out attacks against a state from Lebanese territory, and the state attacked is perfectly within its rights to seek the destruction of Hezbollah in consequence. The position is dirt neutral, and applies to any instance where an armed private body launches attacks on one state from the soil of another. If a government cannot deal with such a body engaged in such actions by any means short of becoming a police state, that is unfortunate, but the alternative is military operations by the state attacked by the body that government cannot control, and the government in question has to choose the best course it can among alternatives available to it. Often there are no good or pleasant choices, but people who set themselves up in the business of government forfeit the right to complain of this: no one made them not be salesmen or weavers or whatever it might have been they were really suited to, instead of directing the fate of a people and a nation.

This sentence "You want all these people to die because some ancient book has a prophecy in it?????" is rather odd, and needs some further explaination on your part. It cannot be properly engaged without some more explicit knowledge of your own motive in making the statement....

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[IsisDawn]

53. Prejudiced because I believe any rational person would clearly see

after all the killing that it's not working. It only breeds more terrorist so maybe, just maybe, you should stop killing each other.

Gotta admit I don't know anything about "Holy Books" just a reference to the Zionist thing mentioned earlier in the thread which my understanding of it is God said something about getting the Holy Land back or something.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

[The Magistrate]

54. Prejudiced And Irrational, Ma'am?

"The first rule of holes is that when you're in one, stop digging."

[pelsar]

39. great theory...

so lebanon cant control the militias within....the way Syria does, Egypt does, Jordan does, Saudi Arabia does, the US, Britian, France etc.......


so if i understand correctly since lebanon cant control hizballa, lebanon should let hizballa attack israel at will as its been doing for the last 6 years and israel should?....(i guess just stand still and lets its citizens be killed...

did i get that right?

[IsisDawn]

40. No I am saying CLEARLY murdering each other isn't working

STOP KILLING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't defeat ideolgy through force. Only love, compassion, COMPROMISE, education and time can undo such senseless murdering done BY BOTH SIDES!

Israel attacking and killing scores of people isn't working!!!!!! Hez will be back and stronger because you are only creating more of them!

[pelsar]

43. remind me again...

why was hizballa attacking israel for the last 6 years......

and your proposal for israel ....i didnt quite understand it....should israel go to hizballa and educate them to love jews?

[IsisDawn]

44. Yes love is the answer

[The Magistrate]

49. But What Is the Question, Ma'am?

Forty-two, by the way, not love, is the answer....

[IsisDawn]

41. And you know what you should stand there and take it.

Take it and reach out. Try apologizing, try talking, try to stop killing people be the bigger person. You may lose citizens but the world will be behind you and will help you and in time it will work. NON VIOLENCE is the only method that will work. Please for the good of the planet stop killing each other.

[msmcghee]

45. Imagine the time and money that could be saved . .

. . if Israel just started killing some of her own citizens every day. How many do you think it would take for Hizb'allah to sue for peace?

[The Magistrate]

51. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Why do you not expect non-violence from Hezbollah?

[IsisDawn]

55. I do expect it for Hezbollah but they aren't here for me to say the exact same thing to

I don't know anything about any of these groups. I'm just a young girl in America hoping to avoid a world war. I don't know anything okay, I just wish there could be peace...

[The Magistrate]

57. There Is No One Here But Us Debators, Ma'am

And that is all you are addressing. But the bulk of your comments seems to suggest that you conceive one side to have a right to fight for their beliefs or aims, and the other to not have the right to do so. Your comments give no sign of viewing violence from Hezbollah as anything but a given, and to call for those subject to it to turn the other cheek. They are not going to.

[IsisDawn]

59. I think the most honest explanation for that is

the recent memory of what happened in Lebanon during the "War". I was subjected, as was everyone else, to a daily dose of horrible details of what was occurring to a lot of innocent Lebanese people. That I suppose is what has made me question so harshly Israels actions.

I am sure Hezbollah deserved what was coming but I question whether justice was served.

I do want to apologize for my tone on this thread and I hope that everyone can understand my only motive is for the violence to stop. It is truly not one-sided and if there would have been anyone debating the Hezbollah ideology my statements would have been the same to them.

By the way what does 42 mean?

[The Magistrate]

61. War Is Always A Ghastly Thing, Ma'am

Forty-Two, according to the late lamented writer and philospher Mr. Douglas Adams, is the answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, Everything....

"They say war's an art but it's not. It mostly consists in robbing widows and orphans, exploiting the weak, and inflicting suffering on the helpless for one's own ends, and that's not art: that's business."

[IsisDawn]

64. LOL Restaurant at the End of the Universe

don't forget to bring your towel :rofl:

[The Magistrate]

65. Exactly, Ma'am

"We apologize for any inconvenience."

[Shaktimaan]

60. No, that's not fair.

She's asking one side to break the cycle of violence in the hopes that the other side will lose the motive for attacking once met by peace.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Not in the middle east, not in europe, not anywhere unless there is a strong, humanitarian government already in place. In terms of Lebanon... peace is seen as weakness. And can actually bring more violence for this reason.

There's no simple answers, sorry.

As for willingly losing some citizens, doing nothing in return, someone actually proposed that in Israel regarding the Qassams. But Israel's a democracy. Think the citizens of the town being hit liked that? Noooo. Imagine what would happen to a politician in America if they suggested something similar about American citizens and you get the picture.

Also, (gotta say it) easy to say when it's not your mother but just someone else's.

[The Magistrate]

62. You Are A Better Man Than Me, Sir

And your reading of the young lady's position doubtless more accurate than my cut-throat's formulation.

[IsisDawn]

66. Again I would certainly advise Hezbollah to stop killing too but

Hezbollah is a bunch of terrorists and can't be reasoned with so I don't think it would do much good. Israel is a government with the ability to make drastic changes that can indeed bring peace to the region. I don't think Hezbollahs goal is peace, it' murder.

Basically Hezbollah can't be defeated by force so something else must be done to achieve peace.

[Shaktimaan]

69. What can Israel do

to bring peace with Hezbollah?

Hezbollah has been attacking Israel for the past 6 years nonstop. (Not with homemade rockets, with Katyushas. Much of their weaponry is hi-tech imported from Iran. Remember that they actually hit an Israeli ship this past summer? Radar guided missiles... not like the qassams the Palestinians use at all.)

They also have no reason whatsoever to be attacking Israel. Israel isn't on their land, isn't oppressing them, hasn't been attacking them. This past summer Hezbollah breached their border, killed several soldiers and kidnapped two more. Of course Israel went after them. But it not as though Israel started this conflict with Hezbollah. And make no mistake, they are extremely dangerous. They are the only group in the middle east to deflect the IDF. Twice now in fact.

It's easy to say that Israel should try love instead of war. But how do you suggest they do so, exactly? Send them valentines? No, seriously. Israel is by far the most powerful military force in the region. But just because they can bring about unparalleled destruction doesn't mean that they can equally bring about unparalleled peace. War is easy. Almost anyone can start a war with almost no equipment. Shoot a leader. Blow up a kindergarten. Whatever. But to make peace you have to appease all those nutjobs that would blow up a kindergarten over politics.

What could Israel do to bring peace with Hezbollah?

[The Magistrate]

35. If The U.S., Ma'am, Did Not Take Obvious And Energetic Measures To Obstruct The Action

It certainly would be liable to retaliation. What you seem to find difficult about this quite eludes me; it is a well established principle of state relations. In this instance, of course, it is known to all the Lebanese government took no steps whatever to rein in Hezbollah, despite being directed by the United Nations to do so. The government of Lebanon would not even send its army to occupy the borderland with Israel where Hezbollah operated against the Israeli state.

[Shaktimaan]

26. The damage the rockets did to N. Israel

is in the billions of dollars. Not to mention millions of Israelis displaced or having had to hunker down in bomb shelters for the better part of a summer.

Moreover, Israel only attacked Hezbollah areas. In Beirut, where Hezbollah has centralized leadership, Israel only hit Hezbollah's neighborhoods. They did not engage a war against all of Lebanon to "punish" them, rather did what they could to win against Hezbollah.

[IsisDawn]

33. All the while failing to realize you can't win against a group

that is made up of citizens. I mean I'm no war expert or anything, but how do you defeat a group when you don't know who they are??????????????????????????????????? You can't, it's sad but you can't. The United States is trying to do the same thing and it won't work it only creates MORE TERRORISTS! Only love, compassion, COMPROMISE and education will work.

[Shaktimaan]

58. If love and compassion is the answer to many of the world's problems,

(and I agree we would all be better off if compromise rather than conflict was our primary tool), it is unfortunately not the answer to every specific situation we face. It is a good philosophy for life. But it is a poor philosophy when dealing with people whose goal truly is to hurt you. For example, I support non-violent resistance over terrorism to achieve political goals. Most people admire Gandhi moreso than Arafat for this reason. But we would be fools to think that peaceful protest is applicable to any situation. Had Gandhi instead been born a Kurd who sought liberation from Saddam Hussein, rather than an Indian resisting the British, it is unlikely that his ideas would have been as successful. (Or that he would have lived long enough to vocalize them to more than a few people.)

Hezbollah is not a freedom fighting organization seeking justice or liberation or anything even remotely rational or fair. They are forthright about their goals. Primarily, destruction of Israel. Secondarily, making Lebanon into an Islamic state. Anyone who challenges them in attaining these goals will be killed. As it is they run southern Lebanon, with their own taxes, schools and infrastructure. When Lebanon began rebuilding the damage done by Israel Hezbollah ensured that the work and aid from western nations was channeled through them. They are the de-facto government of south Lebanon and the real Lebanese government/military is not strong enough to disarm them. At any rate, Lebanon is sick of war. The last thing they want is a civil war, I don't blame them for not wanting to disarm Hezbollah. But someone has to do something. And love, unfortunately, will not cut it.

When terrorists are born of desperation, your point is quite valid. But when they are born of ideology, bringing only compassion is to be a lamb to the slaughter. Bring education to the Khmer Rouge and be tortured to death by a 10 year old in return. Show compassion to the Taliban and they will see only weakness. Is it even possible to love a group like the nazis, who made lampshades out of human skin?

Clearly not. But maybe you CAN compromise. So then what do you do when no compromise can be reached? Israel left Lebanon and the border was ratified by the UN. They withstood months of rocket attacks without retaliating, seeking a diplomatic solution that never came. Every requirement they met brought a new one, without peace, just new justifications. How long do you wait, watching them acquire ever more advanced weaponry?

You can't, it's sad but you can't.

No, you absolutely can. But only at tremendous cost to your own humanity. It is a plan of last resort, but it exists. The whole idea of terrorism is only advantageous if the group they are fighting values life more than winning. If their foe doesn't care about the civilians that the terrorists hide among then the solution is easy. After all, no one mounted a real terrorism campaign against Saddam Hussein, did they? Would you fight if you knew that when you were identified they would feed your family through a meat grinder? Me neither.

The irony of this whole conflict is that it is Israel's humanity that makes their terrorism strategy work. If Israel truly lacked compassion or was really like the Nazis, as some suggest, then there would be no war at all. Do you see a war in Burma?

[IsisDawn]

68. The suggestion to compromise is not with Hezbollah

but with the governments. By reach out I mean humanitarian efforts, by education I mean t.v. radio, dialogue, not with terrorists with people. By love I mean all of these things done with peace in mind.

I gotta at least believe there is a chance for peace.

[Shaktimaan]

76. OK, take a shot.

Can you give me an example of sometime that love, compassion, education, whatever has been effectively used in the past to defuse a similar situation?

[bemildred]

78. Release of the British prisoners by Iran comes to mind.

:-)

[breakaleg]

79. Yes. There are certain instances where taking a hard line gets you nothing.

[Shaktimaan]

81. So how many times

should Israel do nothing? How long is it proper to wait once all diplomatic attempts to curb attacks against your nation have failed?

[Shaktimaan]

80. are you kidding?

They aren't exactly fighting, are they? That was a single incident, not a real conflict.

edit: What I am talking about is an example of sometime that an actual conflict, with severe ideological differences such as the one between Hezbollah and Israel, has been resolved through love. IsisDawn said that love is the only way to resolve the conflict, (as opposed to more killing), so I would like an example of when it has worked earlier.

Because I know of plenty of examples when killing worked.

[bemildred]

82. Well, I thought it showed compassion.

Or anyway that's what Ahm-an-idjit said, and it defused the situation. And I'm sure the British sailors appreciated it. Admittedly, it's no panacea. But I can't see that it made anything worse, either.

[eyl]

84. Which, as I recall, happened only after

the UK started employing economic pressure and making noises about escalating.

[pelsar]

20. no the war isnt over...

ask nassralla......hes rearming once again to "defend lebanon"

[bemildred]

83. Hezbollah, Israel take grudges to courtroom

JERUSALEM: Eight months after the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon the two foes took their battle to the courtroom yesterday as three captured Shiite militants fought for legal protection as prisoners of war. Israel is seeking to brand the militants captured by its troops in southern Lebanon as "illegal combatants," the same legal classification used by the United States to deny Guantanamo Bay inmates due process in American courts. The militants' Israeli lawyers, however, say they deserve to be protected by the same international treaties that apply to prisoners of war.

At a preliminary hearing yesterday, the defence argued that Hezbollah acted as an agent of the Lebanese government while the prosecution countered that Hezbollah did not reflect Lebanese government policy. As enemy combatants the three captives would face murder charges and the prospects of long stints in Israeli jails. As prisoners of war, they would be sent back to Lebanon as soon as a prisoner exchange can be agreed. The three men-Mohammed Adelhamid Srour, 20, Hussein Suleiman, 23, and Maher Hassan Kurani, 30 - were captured on August 4 in the villages of Aita al-Shaab and Shihine, two Lebanese border villages on the war's front lines. They are being charged with attempted murder for setting an ambush for Israeli soldiers and "membership in a terrorist organisation." Suleiman is accused of aiding in the capture of two Israeli soldiers in July, an incident that sparked the month long conflict last year.

"They are prisoners of war because they were combatants who took part in a war between two countries, Israel and Lebanon," defence lawyer Smadar Ben Nathan told AFP. "Lebanon did not send its own troops to the south to protect it against the Israeli army but instead relied on Hezbollah. It thus represented the Lebanese armed forces." Israel's justice ministry sees things differently. Hezbollah, it says, is an "illegal terrorist militia" which is not in any way a regular army. "The system has decided they should be tried as people who commit crimes against the state of Israel," justice ministry spokesman Moshe Cohen told AFP. "They can not enjoy the privileges of prisoners of war because they don't abide by rules of engagement. They shoot from within civilian homes," he said.

"You have to pay the price for what you did." Defence lawyers say they hope that wartime declarations by Israeli and Lebanese leaders will show that Israel entered into a conflict with another country, a war to which international law applies. "On the day that the two Israeli soldiers were taken-last July 12 - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accused Lebanon of an attack against the state of Israel," the lawyer for Srour said.

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTM4MDYwNzQy