home

Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resolution

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 08:22:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: al-Jazeera reports Lebanon has rejected the proposed U.N. resolution. Lebanon's foreign minister said the only proposal it will accept is one that calls for every member of the Israeli military to leave Lebanon.

"We [will] abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it" Mohammed Fneish, Hezbollah minister in Lebanese cabinet

******
Original Post 12:22 pm
U.N. to Vote on Resolution on Israel and Lebanon

After 25 days of war between Israel and Lebanon, France and the U.S. have agreed on a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Members of the 15-member Security Council will hold a 3 p.m. ET closed-door meeting to discuss the proposal backed by the U.S. -- Israel's strongest ally -- and France, which historically has close ties to Lebanon.

A full vote is not expected for several days. Tony Blair had this to say:

He said from London that the ultimate aim was "to put the government of Lebanon fully and properly in control of the whole of Lebanon, so that Lebanon can get back on its feet and Israel can be secure."

According to BBC News, the text of the resolution requires:

.... a "full cessation of hostilities", demanding that Hezbollah halt all attacks and Israel stop all offensive military operations. A BBC correspondent at the UN says the wording would allow Israel some freedom if it argues it needs to defend itself.

U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said:

He said the text did not include a requirement for an immediate cessation of hostilities. But it does call for "the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military actions".

A French official said:

.... the text called for a buffer zone to be set up free of all but the Lebanese Army and United Nations-mandated forces in southern Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to increase its attacks on Israel:

After firing 100 or more rockets daily during the first three weeks of the fighting, Hezbollah has been launching an average of around 200 rockets daily over the past four days, including Saturday.

Israel on Friday bombed bridges between Lebanon and Syria to prevent Syria from shipping weapons to Hezbollah.

< Gary Hart Predicts Bush to Announce Iraq Exit Strategy | Novak: Giuliani Will Run for President >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resolution | 54 comments (54 topical)
    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    ... the text called for a buffer zone to be set up free of all but the Lebanese Army and United Nations-mandated forces in southern Lebanon.
    Uh.... That's what we had for the past 10 years. Another phony pause fire.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    Yes Jim how dare anyone seek peace when this nation or one of its satellites is engaged in war. Anyone seeking a cease-fire in the Israel-Lebanon affair is, let me guess, "judophobic," right? Blech. Interestingly, I watched The Interpreter for the first time yesterday. The whole movie speaks to the problematic nature of the UN, and also what are the great possibilities of the institution. It other words, unlike the sycophant MSM, this movie rejects binary definitions of the UN (for libertarians, that means it rejects UN Wholly Bad AND UN wholly good consturtcs). The scene where Penn teaches Kidman "how to put a gun down" is a genuine tear jerker.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    judophobic as opposed to christophiliac? Is it a smell thing or something determined by deduction? Or is it just a standard convoluted attack meant to hijack the discussion through intimation and intimidation. Weak, and a bit too cute for me.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:14:23 PM EST
    Glanton: Your gross activities aside, and I must say they define you, this is what 1559 said:
    Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
    Now, in the spirit of honest debate, explain to me the difference. What will the UN add? "We mean it this time!" Pardon me while I shake my head in disgust. Of course if they stomp their feet, wag their fingers at Hizbollah and then put both hands on their hips... BTW - You write:
    The scene where Penn teaches Kidman "how to put a gun down" is a genuine tear jerker.
    Surely you jest. BTW - Life is not a movie. I would have thought you knew that. Squeaky - Perhaps you can explain why a comment on a direct quote from the post could be "hijacking." You, of course, cannot. I suspect your real concern is that my comment nailed the UN for producing another useless resolution that will only help Hezbollah and other assorted terrorists in the ME.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:25:15 PM EST
    Surely you jest It would have to go along way to beat the scene where Patton slaps that shell-shocked soldier around. Now that was poignant. Yes life is not a movie; or a Shakespeare play; or a Powerline or FrontPage link; or a Hitchens quote repeated ad nauseum.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:29:28 PM EST
    Your gross activities aside,
    Not sure what you mean by that...
    Surely you jest.
    No, I don't. The idea of putting down a gun, the courage it takes to put down a gun when you're filled with whatever poison caused you to pick it up, is very moving to some people, Jim. I don't expect you to understand. And it's not like you ever saw the movie (not that this stopped you from railing against Moore's work, but then hey, if Powerline and Rush say it is must be true).
    BTW - Life is not a movie. I would have thought you knew that.
    You really have some nerve saying something like that in front of all these people who have been reading your little posts for years. Your constant GOOD VERSUS EVIL drivel--indeed, you really do, in all seriousness, seem to believe that all of these events are easily discernible in terms of good and evil and that wherever Uhmerrikah's declared interests are defines the good. What a sad world you occupy. You post, people read and try to engage the quasi-arguments you're putting out there, and then you ignore their responses and post more drivel. When soundly beaten for all to see you write "my point stands."

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    Squeaky - Perhaps you can explain why a comment on a direct quote from the post could be "hijacking."
    Your friend Hitchens invented the term to be disruptive and thus hijack. His neologism is tantamount to a non-sequitur, which is also a hijack. You just want to define the argument here by using incendiary provocative name calling and linking to a right wing nazi fantasy that goes on and on about the history of jew hating gleefully expounding on all the gruesome details. Judophobia is not a word used by anyone in the world except for you ppj, and its inventor Peter Hitchens. Its idiosyncratic invented sound signs anti-semitic hate. If you yell fire in a movie theater and everyone stampeeds out and there is no fire you got some 'xplaining to do. Hitchens and you 'xplain that it only sounded like fire but you said liar. But according to Hitchens the word only applies to anti-zionists and the profuse historical background of anti-semitism throught his article that you linked to was just a warm up, to get the mood right, right? Puffy and cute rhetorical BS absolutely transparent as is your hijack.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    The real reason israel is invading is water, hezbollah is just the latest excuse.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    Glanton - My question to you remains unasnwered. What will the UN add this time that will change anything from last time. I quoted 1559 and we have what the new resolution supposedly says, and they are the same. As many have said, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So I invite you to lay down your gun as the actors in a fake world did, and answer the question rather than snarl at me because I am not thrilled by their petty and fantasy filled speeches. Squeaky - Glanton brought judophobic into the thread at 5:55PM and you seconded his inclusion at 6:43PM. Yours truly has not written the word in this thread, so I wonder why you bring it up? Again, your problem is that my comment re the UN hit the target directly and you have no reply. Jondee - And your point is? I find it amusing that you reference Patton's actions, for which he was soundly criticized

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    ppj always chants 1559, ignoring its content that israel is violating and all the resolutions before it that israel is violating. 700+ lebanese civilians dead, 30+ israeli civilians dean ... do the math.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    What's your point, Jim? Should the fighting continue? And the US government is satisfied with the agreement reached. What is your problem? You talk about the UN as if it was an extraterrestrial organization which the US has nothing to do with.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 11:06:22 PM EST
    Jim, I'll see your 1559 and raise you 242.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    I quoted 1559 and we have what the new resolution supposedly says, and they are the same.
    Jim. You always quote 1559. Why?

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    The US and Israel don't want peace. Why? Here is just one more proposal floating around for progress. but war is cooler.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 03:58:40 AM EST
    Che, Lebanon rejected the peace plan, not Israel.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#16)
    by roger on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 05:08:14 AM EST
    Hamas is refusing the Red Cross access to their captured/kidnapped Israeli soldier.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 06:23:44 AM EST
    Che - Since the Palestinians rejected 242, you have no chips.... But even if they had agreed to it, it has nothing to do with 1559. As you know, if 1559 had been enforced, the current situation would not exist. Sailor - You can chatter all you want, but you can't ignore this: From 1559.
    Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
    Al - My point is that this resolution, as I understand it, is just annother pause fire, and will allow Iran/Syria ro rearm Hizbolla with even more dangerous weapons. Short answer. There is never a good time to fight. But this is best time for Israel and the west.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 07:15:10 AM EST
    Not really a question, but an observation. Applys to war and speech. Only when a person or country feels threatned either by superior power or intellect do they respond with an attack. Niether are really a good reason, you fight a good fight, but usually come up bloody and with less sense. Just rambling this morning, dont read much into it.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 07:21:03 AM EST
    If the anti-US/Israel demonstrations in Iraq get out of control to a point of threatening US troops, would Israel stop the air attacks to protect US troops?

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 09:20:39 AM EST
    If the anti-US/Israel demonstrations in Iraq get out of control to a point of threatening US troops, would Israel stop the air attacks to protect US troops?
    Oh rumi, you are so bad.... and funny too.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    rumi - No, the troops can take care of themselves. And given the amount of Iranian money, materials and men that has been poured into Iraq, the situation is remarkedly calm. Squeaky - You had no idea what the response would be??

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    No, the troops can take care of themselves.
    Up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions
    The man nominated to be the next Marine Corps commandant told a Senate committee Thursday that the decisions to disband the Iraqi army and to bar all members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from holding government jobs left U.S. commanders with too few troops and with duties for which they were not prepared
    And given the amount of Iranian money, materials and men that has been poured into Iraq, the situation is remarkedly calm.
    I call BS, provide links. the sit in iraq is worse now than it has ever been, we're not fighting teerrorism, we're in the middle of a civil war ... that we caused.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    Sailor quotes (I guess):
    The man nominated to be the next Marine Corps commandant told a Senate committee Thursday that the decisions to disband the Iraqi army and to bar all members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from holding government jobs left U.S. commanders with too few troops and with duties for which they were not prepared
    Sounds like Patton after WWII when he was wanting to use Nazis in the German government. How do you feel about that? BTW - It ws the US ARMY we were writing about, but nice subject change.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    It's simple math, Jim. The troops are ricidulously outnumbered.
    Sistani Sistani has issued a warning to the United States. He wants Bush to intervene to arrange a ceasefire, i.e. the cessation of israeli air raids on Lebanon in general. What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq's profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation.
    By the way, Abizaid recently suggested arming, upgrading and training the Lebanese army. What happens if Hizbollah gets pushed into disarming but turns around and joins forces by merging with the legitimate army? Abizaid: U.S. should arm Lebanese army

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    rumi - Uh, we don't fight fixed place pitched battles anymore. Dark Avenger - And your comment has what to do with the subject? Why nothing, of course. Sigh....

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    Jim- What's that supposed to mean concerning my original question and your responses?

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    ppj, the thread is about lebanon and the UN res, not patton, try to stay on topic. ppj always conveniently cherry picks the one part of 1559 he agrees with, and forgets this: 2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;israel is a foreign force whose stated intentions are to occupy lebanon. ppj also conveniently ignore all the violations of UN resolutions that israel still ignores. (partial list here) not to mention 242 & 338 which they are still ignoring. no wonder lebanon rejects one that doesn't call for the withdrawl of israel, not that israel would pay any attention to it ether.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    ppj, I pointed out that BOTH the army and the marines are running on empty due to bush's failed policies. Then you made a wild claim that:
    And given the amount of Iranian money, materials and men that has been poured into Iraq, the situation is remarkedly calm.
    yet you can't provide a link. And saying it is remarkably calm when it is in worse shape than ever is delusional. Then you accused others of changing the subject. Projecting again I see. BTW, since the palestinians were never mentioned in 242 passed in 1967. And the israelis
    Until 1993, Israel did not acknowledge Palestinian national rights or recognize the Palestinians as an independent party to the conflict.
    So they were stateless and no say in 242. But israel violated 242 by not withdrawing from the territories. Lebanon has learned that if israel isn't required to leave their country they'll just keep occupying it. And history shows israel is likely to igore it anyway.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 07:52:32 PM EST
    Sailor - Leave it, like it or lump it... Hizbollah attacked Israel. If 1559 had worked, Hizbollah wouldn't have done that. So quit parsing, quit dancing, quit posturing and just face the truth. Your inclusion of 242 just demos, again, your judophobia...

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    Jim - Why do you keep referencing the "resolutions" of the enemy of the U.S? You just give them credibility when you do that. Or, are you just a judophobe?

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    Btw, What part of "We dont call people racists here" dont you understand? Pinhead.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    Lebanon is right. The UN shouldn't propose any peace agreements or cease fires where anyone is left in anyone else's territory. No matter whose fault it is, it's not peace with forces occupying any corner of a sovereign nation.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:27:23 AM EST
    Agent99 - I agree. When is Hizbolla going to leave? Jondee - Just to show how worthless the UN really is....

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:47:53 AM EST
    from Helena Cobban a long time observer and writer on lebanon affairs:
    Personally, I think the best way to proceed would be to seek an immediate and complete cessation of the hostilities (and all their attendant death and suffering), with that ceasefire to be monitored by an empowered UN truce-observation force, such as already exists along the Israel-Lebanon border (UNTSO plus UNIFIL), but further beefed up and empowered. This ceasefire should also include a promise-- to Lebanon, to all other regional powers, and to the world community-- that within a specified, short period of time (two weeks?) the United Nations will convene an authoritative international peace conference to resolve all the outstanding strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of all the outstanding Security Council resolutions (242, 338, 1559)-- terms that would include the conclusion of robust peace agreements between Israel and, respectively, Lebanon, Syria, and a free-at-last Palestine; Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from the territories occupied in 1967; and the demobilization of all non-state armed formations. This approach could and should be followed, and is the best way I can see to end the suffering and hostility that have festered in the ever-volatile Israeli-Arab region for far too long, of which the present Israeli-Lebanese fighting is just the latest manifestation.
    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:52:10 AM EST
    hezbollah has 23 seats in parliament, israel has hundreds of muntions destroying civilian infrastructures ... who should leave? ppj is a truthophobe:
    And given the amount of Iranian money, materials and men that has been poured into Iraq, the situation is remarkedly calm.
    still no links.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    sailor - To get to this point, Israel left. You seem determined to ignore that key point. You also seem determined to ignore that Hizbollah is a terrorist organization controlled by Syria and Iran. Your inability to grasp the fact that Hizbolla struck first after being allowed to rearm itself for years by the UN demonstrates again that you are anti-Israel, or as Hitchens said, you have judophobia. (Note to Jondee. Read the article. Judophobia is specifically anti-racist.) SD quotes:
    but further beefed up and empowered.
    What does this mean? That they will disarm Hezbollah? What if Hezbollah refuses? What if Syria and Iran refuses? How will they do that? Will they attack Hizbolla to enforce the resolution? If so, who will provide troops? Will they prevent Syria and Iran from sending millions in cash and arms to Hizbollah? How will they do that? Will they attack Iran and Syria to enforce the resolution? SD, you, I and your so-called informed author know that the UN will never enforce the above. She might as well be telling Virgina that yes, there is a Santa Claus.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    SD, you, I and your so-called informed author know that the UN will never enforce the above.
    If that is so, it will be because the US doesn't want it to happen. The UN is only as good as the willingness of the major powers to cooperate. On the ME issue it is the US which is now preventing any real solution. Going to war is easy, working for peace is hard work requiring compromises by everyone. Until the US goes back to being an inpartial broker there is no hope. Although other countries can bring pressure to bear on the Arab countries, only the US can pressure Israel. Since the US appears unwilling any time soon to give up their hegemoy in the ME there is indeed no hope. But the US will have no one to blame but themselves.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    (Note to Jondee. Read the article. Judophobia is specifically anti-racist.)
    The word means nothing. It is an silly invented word meant to incite and provoke. Perfect for the serial hijacker ppj. Who do you think you are anyway, Humpty Dumpty?
    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
    All the kings horses and all the kings men....

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    Jim, Becasue I think these are good questions that need to be address, little ol' Peaches gives you his opinion,for what it is worth...
    What does this mean? That they will disarm Hezbollah?
    An immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops should include language calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah.
    What if Hezbollah refuses?
    They should not be allowed to refuse.
    What if Syria and Iran refuses?
    The arming of Hebollah by Syria or Iran would be a violation of the ceasefire agreement and Syria and Iran would be subject to force short of war, menaing containment policies and embargoes and inspecition of cargo crossing into Lebanon.
    Will they attack Hizbolla to enforce the resolution?
    Hezbollah cannot be allowed to be armed and whatever is necessary to enforce this should be allowed. But, first it must be positively concluded they have violated this requirement for disaarmament.
    If so, who will provide troops?
    It needs to be a multinatinoal force that does not include, for a number of reasons, any US troops. It is necessary that Europe step up with the necessary troops and militaray to enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah. At the same time Israel must also work to resolve the Palestinian issue. The world needs to get together to solve the problems in the Middle East and the US should begin its withdrawal from the region leaving it for other nations to come togehter to bring peace to the region. Of course, none of the above will ever happen.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    still no links from the truthophobe.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#44)
    by theologicus on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    Jewish Peace News Excellent collection of recent articles by Jewish Voices for Peace

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    The key that BB, PPj and their ilk forget is that both israel and Lebanon need to be forced to comply with all resolutions and to work for peace. To only think that its all lebanon's fault is to resign yourself to more war and insecurity. As long as the US doesn't want peace there will be no peace

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    Sailor - You are just so lazy it is unbelievable. This took all of 2 minutes.
    ABC News Int'l March 6, 2006 -- U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.
    SD writes:
    If that is so, it will be because the US doesn't want it to happen.
    Uh-huh... I mean France, Germany, et al have been just so willing to do what we want them to do. As Ole Sarge says, SD, "Listen up! Europe will not send troops because they have been terrified into obedience by the IslamicFacists. It is doubtful they will recover in time to defend themselves, much less Israel." Peaches - See Ole Sarge's thoughts. You call for the US to withdraw... Can I assume you were against our involvement in Kosovo? Squeaky - All words are "invented." "Homophobic" didn't exist until someone connected the two. "judophobia" is a great word because it separates the racist from the opposition to Israel. I can well remember John Mann, for example, carefully explaining to me that he was not against Jews, but Israel and his view of their policies. In other words, it allows us to note that someone can be against Israel, but not a racist anti-semite. I would think you would be all for such a word.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    SD writes: If that is so, it will be because the US doesn't want it to happen. Uh-huh... I mean France, Germany, et al have been just so willing to do what we want them to do.
    WTF The US is a member of the UNSC, nothing can happen without there voting for it. The US has been blocking any real settlement that would include holding Israel to the same level of compliance as Lebanon. Either everyone complies or no one will. Since the US doesn't want peace the hands of the UNSC are tied. Of course you want the UNSC to go along with the US and Israel and exterminate Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    You call for the US to withdraw... Can I assume you were against our involvement in Kosovo?
    Of course, you can.
    "Listen up! Europe will not send troops because they have been terrified into obedience by the IslamicFacists. It is doubtful they will recover in time to defend themselves, much less Israel."
    I don't know why Europe has not sent troops in the past. I geuss it has been a pragmatic decision, since The US is so ready to send troops to make war in their abscence. The problem for them has been, as was the case in the invasion in Iraq, If they are not involved to a significant level during force ahort of war (necessary troop levels for containment, inspections, embargoes, no fly zones, etc.), then they give the US permission to act unilateally - or, at least, they are unable to pervent the US from acting. As I said, I have no confidence Europe will act together, but they need to step up or the ME could very easily blow up into WW III and they would suffer greatly. IT is now in their interests to put together a plan with them in the lead (France, Germany, Italy Spain, perhaps joined by Russia and China, also) and let the US take a much needed rest in the region.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    Not to slime the weasal (the opposite of gilding the lilly), but, anytime "phobe" or "phobia" is used, the implication is of a large irrational underpinning of fear or aversion: the same causal underpinning generally used to excplain racism and anti-semitism. What Mr.Disengenuity is rather transparently doing is playing the same anti-semtism card without overtly playing it. As someone else said: Jackdaw of fraud, heal thyself.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    I was hoping that was the report you meant. sorry ppj, not good enough, you stated
    "And given the amount of Iranian money, materials and men that has been poured into Iraq, the situation is remarkedly calm."
    so where are all the men and $$? Plus that report was disproved propaganda at the time, the US had already tried it before and failed when it was found that: Eight British soldiers killed during ambushes in Iraq were the victims of a highly sophisticated bomb first used by the IRA, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
    The soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they travelled through the country, died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched "sting" operation more than a decade ago.

    This contradicts the British government's claims that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices. And from General Pace:
    The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.
    And right in front of rummy at a DOD press conference:
    Q You and General Pace and, indeed, the president and others have had intimated strongly in recent days that Iran is stirring -- actively stirring up violence in Iraq. You said that Revolutionary Guards and IEDs and weapons are moving across the border from Iran. What you have not said conclusively is whether the government of Iran and the mullahs are sponsoring that activity. Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?
    SEC. RUMSFELD: Pete?
    GEN. PACE: I do not, sir.
    If you and your ilk weren't so damn gullible we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    uuuh, being against the actions of warcrime committing country of israel has nothing to do with jews. Just more of your truthophobia.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    ppj-
    Squeaky - All words are "invented." "Homophobic" didn't exist until someone connected the two. "judophobia" is a great word because it separates the racist from the opposition to Israel.
    Hitchens said that he invented the word to be annoying and provactive. It suggests a fear of jews, in fact 10 out of 10 educated people would guess that is the meaning. Why is it provocative? Because the name has no suggestion of the meaning gives it. Words come into usage because they make sense; their meaning is immediately recognized, not obsured. Hitchens and his lackeys use the word as a rhetorical device to get a reaction in order to divert any discussion to their terms. It is pathetic and your clinging on to is as some kind of elucidating godsend is wholly dishonest. How's this for an equally silly neologism: ppj is a naziphile. Nice huh. I just invented the word. Am I calling you a nazi lover? No, the word means a person who loves Israel. Why? Because I say so. Think it will stick? It has about as good a chance as Judophobe. Anyone can play Humpty Dumpty just like you and Hitchens. Trouble is, well, they wind up looking as foolish as Humpty Dumpty.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    sailor - You got what you got. No matter what you are told/given that shows the terrorist supporting companies in their true light you reject.. It's an old trick used by people who are supporting the indefensible. Now tell me. Are you really trying to say that Iran isn't doing everything possible to cause problems in Iraq?? Thanks for the giggle. Squeaky - So? Hitchens wrote:
    I use this word to distinguish it from the expression 'anti-semitism',
    and he also said that:
    and also to annoy people who have embraced political correctness
    If the shoe fits, wear it. But that doesn't mean that word doesn't acurately describe people who aren't anti-semite, who don't hate Jews, but yet have an almost irrational reaction to Israel. And "naziphile?" When you get your own column, you may make up all the words you like, and some might even stick. In the meantime, thanks for the giggle..

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    It would be much more accurate and honest to describe it as an "irrational" reaction to the actions of the U.S Right and Israeli Right partnership, but pushing the crypto-anti-semitism charge (as long as TL will let you get away with it) is somehow so much more satisfying. Kinda like your equally disengenuous "America's always wrong" charge. Sailor nailed it quite well. Truthophobe.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    But that doesn't mean that word doesn't acurately describe people who aren't anti-semite, who don't hate Jews, but yet have an almost irrational reaction to Israel.
    And how does it do that? Because Hitchens says so? At best, out of any context relating to jews or Israel, it would be taken to mean someone deeply afraid of the martial art "Judo", at worst in the context of jews or Israel it would be taken to mean someone deeply afraid of jews. If either you or Hitchens had an honest bone in your body you would create a word like Zionophobe, Israelaphobe, Herzlophobe etc. Or better yet, if making a distinction was the real point of the neologism, anti-zionist, a word already in use, which clearly does not imply anti-semitism would be adequate. But you and Hitchens do not want to communicate. Your intentions are rhetorical and self serving. Hitchens wants to self promote his twisted views of anti-semitism and Israel by drawing readers to his site were he has to explain the non-sequitur neologism through long winded descriptions of nazi horror. And you, well, it is just hijack as usual. You use the word expressly to foster a misunderstanding and provoke ire. It is a silly trap that allows you to say: 'but I didn't mean that, go read Hitchens.... tee, hee, giggle, giggle.' Great word. Making up a politically loaded word meant to annoy other with an obscure meaning is nonsense. The fact that you relish the nonsense is not surprising.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    sailor - You got what you got. No matter what you are told/given that shows the terrorist supporting companies in their true light you reject
    I quoted the DoD press conference where the ACTUAL general in iraq, Gen'l Pace said he had no evidence of what you are claiming. No IEDs, no $$, no iranian troops. I also linked to the facts that showed where that propaganda came from. So, ppj, instead of relying on your link which was proven wrong by the gov't DoD press conference made jointly with Pace, I went with the truth. What else is new, you are a truthophobe.

    Re: Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resoluti (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    From the LA times article about Vietnam atrocities:
    "The lieutenant asked the captain what should be done with them. The captain asked the lieutenant if he remembered the op order (operation order) that came down that morning and he repeated the order which was 'kill anything that moves,' " Henry said in his statement. "I was a little shook ... because I thought the lieutenant might do it."
    From Dan Halutz the Israeli Air Force Commander in Chief (via billmon) :
    However, the officer said, "we are now in a process of renewed escalation. We will continue hitting everything that moves in Hezbollah -- but we will also hit strategic civilian infrastructure" . . . "It could be that at the end of the story, Lebanon will be dark for a few years," said one [officer].
    The difference is that none of the US commanders admitted to having said "kill anything that moves" while the head of the Israeli AF brazenly announces it. We have come a long way.

    Report: Lebanon Rejects Proposed U.N. Resolution | 54 comments (54 topical)