Israel the victim?? Really?!?

GIAP, et al,

Yes, the term terrorism is highly overused. But I don't make the definitions. It is often applied for political reasons, as opposed to rational reasons. But, look at the methods of operations in connection to the goals, and an argument can be made for it. Hezbollah is an evolving group. There are many facets to it (legitimate political party actives, positive social and humanitarian programs, conventional and asymmetrical hostile operations), both good and bad.

Giap said:

Have you actually got any evidence that Hizbollah get funding from South American cocaine? I have heard the stories but never seen the evidence,sounds like a story made up by the CIA or Mossad. I would not class Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation either and most of the entire world do not class them as that.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

It is not a secret. It has been know for several years. Various news stories (American and nonAmerican outlets) have been appearing since 2008. I was never a South American specialist, but my understanding was (from the Middle East) the original connections started with counterfeiting and money laundering.

Friday said:

These latest Kingpin Act designations highlight Hezbollah's presence in Latin America, but the threat that the militant group presents to the region should not be overhyped. Hezbollah does receive a substantial amount of money in the form of remittances from South America, especially Paraguay's tri-border area shared with Brazil and Argentina, a hub for all varieties of smuggling and counterfeiting. The tri-border area has a large Lebanese population, some elements of which are thought to provide financial support to the group. But there is little evidence that Hezbollah is actively involved in directing criminal enterprises in the region.
SOURCE: http://www.insightcrime.org/insight...reasury-points-to-hezbollah-presence-in-latam

Click to expand...

US concerned over Hezbollah said:

“We are concerned about the activities of Iran and Hezbollah in the Western Hemisphere,” the top U.S. envoy told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs at a hearing.

Washington recognizes Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group in Lebanon, as a terrorist organization, while Iran’s disputed nuclear program is resulted in sanctions by Washington and its allies.
SOURCE: http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/03/02/us-concerned-over-hezbollah-iran-link-to-drug-cartels/

Click to expand...

Drug probe finds Hezbollah link OCT 12 said:

The suspects allegedly worked with a Colombian cartel and a paramilitary group to smuggle cocaine to the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Harb traveled extensively to Lebanon, Syria and Egypt and was in phone contact with Hezbollah figures, according to Colombian officials.

"The profits from the sales of drugs went to finance Hezbollah," said Gladys Sanchez, lead investigator for the special prosecutor's office in Bogota, in an interview. "This is an example of how narco-trafficking is a theme of interest to all criminal organizations, the FARC, the paramilitaries and terrorists."
SOURCE: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/22/world/fg-cocainering22

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

GIAP, et al,

Yes, the term terrorism is highly overused. But I don't make the definitions. It is often applied for political reasons, as opposed to rational reasons. But, look at the methods of operations in connection to the goals, and an argument can be made for it. Hezbollah is an evolving group. There are many facets to it (legitimate political party actives, positive social and humanitarian programs, conventional and asymmetrical hostile operations), both good and bad.


(COMMENT)

It is not a secret. It has been know for several years. Various news stories (American and nonAmerican outlets) have been appearing since 2008. I was never a South American specialist, but my understanding was (from the Middle East) the original connections started with counterfeiting and money laundering.



Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

So your evidence consists of three reports,two of them from the US government(proven liars thru the ages) and then a third from their only friend left in South America,the Colombians.Sorry but I am not buying it and your third article sates "allegedly",which means unproven. You are free to believe it though,if you wish.

Giap,

There are many articles on the issue and the expanded operations of Hezbollah. I only chose a sample.

Since I'm not a entity that holds evidence, I obviously wouldn't have any.

Giap said:

So your evidence consists of three reports,two of them from the US government(proven liars thru the ages) and then a third from their only friend left in South America,the Colombians.Sorry but I am not buying it and your third article sates "allegedly",which means unproven. You are free to believe it though,if you wish.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

This is OK with me. I only represent one point of view.

In my time in the Middle East, I have encountered any number of view points, to include a wide range of indigenous populations that whole heartedly support the benevolent nature of Hezbollah.

The entire nature of the Middle East dilemma is based on those that have chosen a side.

I think, based on Hezbollah's past history, from 1982 forward, its involvement in Jihad, the fight against peace keepers in Lebanon, and its commitment to follow the path of the First and Second Intifada, that whatever you call Hezbollah, it is not a righteous organization. Its history speaks for itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

I think, based on Hezbollah's past history, from 1982 forward, its involvement in Jihad, the fight against peace keepers in Lebanon, and its commitment to follow the path of the First and Second Intifada, that whatever you call Hezbollah, it is not a righteous organization. Its history speaks for itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

The things that you named do not make it unrighteous. Fighting against so called peace keepers in the Lebanon was perfectly acceptable when those same peace keepers who were supposed to be impartial all dropped down on the side of the Israeli invading army. One of those so called peace keepers shelled Lebanon killing loads of civilians,guess who? Begins with A. The so called peace keepers tried to go around disarming the forces on Lebanons side while leaving the Israeli to do what they wanted to. Maybe you can see Hizbollahs point of view.Nothing wrong with either the first of second intifada as far as I am concerned unless you are some sort of zionist,if oppress a people and steal their land then they are going to react and have every right to do that,why you would put that up as something wrong,I do not know,if it was Americans being oppressed and having their land stolen by say the Chinese I am sure you would be all for fighting back. Jihad? Not too sure what you mean by that really. Hizbollah were set up because of the Israeli invasion and they fought against the Israelis and the Israelis Lebanese allies who used to go around massacring Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. Do you think they should have just sat back and let that happen?

Giap, et al,

I'm not totally on the side of either the Hezbollah or the Israeli.

Giap said:

• The things that you named do not make it unrighteous.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

It is subjective at best, I grant you.

Giap said:

• Fighting against so called peace keepers in the Lebanon was perfectly acceptable when those same peace keepers who were supposed to be impartial all dropped down on the side of the Israeli invading army.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

• What was the original cause of action?
• Why did the Israelis find it necessary to invade?
• Was there an large PLO contingent using Lebanon as a base of operations?

Hezbollah was, at its inception, a slit-client proxy of Iran and Syria.

UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon), posted the following background to the 1982 Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon on its website (accessed Dec. 18, 2003):

"In the early 1970s, tension along the Israel-Lebanon border increased, especially after the relocation of Palestinian armed elements from Jordan to Lebanon [see Black September]. Palestinian commando operations against Israel and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian bases in Lebanon intensified. On 11 March 1978, a commando attack in Israel resulted in many dead and wounded among the Israeli population; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) claimed responsibility for that raid. In response, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon on the night of 14/15 March [1978], and in a few days occupied the entire southern part of the country except for the city of Tyre and its surrounding area.
​

On 15 March 1978, the Lebanese Government submitted a strong protest to the [U.N.] Security Council against the Israeli invasion, stating that it had no connection with the Palestinian commando operation. On 19 March [1978], the Council adopted resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), in which it called upon Israel immediately to cease its military action and withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory. It also decided on the immediate establishment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
The first UNIFIL troops arrived in the area on 23 March 1978."​

Dec. 18, 2003 - United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
The 1987 Country Studies/Area Handbook on Israel, published by the United States Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, contained the following:

"The PLO, following its expulsion from Jordan in September 1970, set up its major base of operations in southern Lebanon from which it attacked northern Israel. The number and size of PLO operations in the south accelerated throughout the late 1970s as central authority deteriorated and Lebanon became a battleground of warring militias. In March 1978, following a fedayeen attack, originating in Lebanon, on the Tel Aviv-Haifa road that killed thirty-seven people, Israel launched 'Operation Litani,' a massive military offensive that resulted in Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River. By June Prime Minister Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israeli forces, which were replaced by a UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)..."

1987 - Country Studies / Area Handbooks Program​

Click to expand...

Giap said:

• Maybe you can see Hizbollahs point of view.Nothing wrong with either the first of second intifada as far as I am concerned unless you are some sort of zionist,if oppress a people and steal their land then they are going to react and have every right to do that

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

While I don't agree with the Israeli occupation and administration of the Occupied Territories. I believe the Rome Statues should be in play.

I don't think that any Arab or self-proclaimed Palestinian would have done different if the roles were reversed. And I don't believe that the Regional Arab has any respect for life and laws.

The first and second Intifada was merely an attempt to acquire control and influence which neither that Palestinian People or the insurgents every properly had to begin with, in the territories. The Arab wars were initiated by the Arab, and the consequence are

Giap said:

• Jihad? Not too sure what you mean by that really. Hizbollah were set up because of the Israeli invasion and they fought against the Israelis and the Israelis Lebanese allies who used to go around massacring Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. Do you think they should have just sat back and let that happen?

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Hezbollah proclaims itself as "an Islamic struggle movement." Hezbollah condemns "the Zionist occupation of Palestine" and candidly states that it "sees no legitimacy for the existence of ‘Israel.’” Which is, in effect, the continuation of the idea that International Laws do not apply to the Arab or its freedom fighters.

Hezbollah has evolved. While the original intent in 1985 was about the incursion into Lebanon, it is much broader than that now. There is no Israeli incursion in Lebanon now; the mission of Hezbollah has moved forward from a defensive justification to an offensive posture.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

• What was the original cause of action?
• Why did the Israelis find it necessary to invade?
• Was there an large PLO contingent using Lebanon as a base of operations?

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

I will just cover this bit for now,I will get back to you on the rest. So the original cause of the actions was that western powers handed over to European Jews someone elses land and said they could have a country there. The legal inhabitants of that land,lets call them Palestinians were not happy about that and fought against it just like anybody else would anywhere in the world. The illegal immigrants,lets call them the Israelis then went on to steal more land and the locals fought back with what they had but they were not backed up by the biggest military power on the planet.I think that just about covers that section.

RoccoR said:

The first and second Intifada was merely an attempt to acquire control and influence which neither that Palestinian People or the insurgents every properly had to begin with, in the territories. The Arab wars were initiated by the Arab, and the consequence are
Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

The first and second intifada were a response to decades of Israeli oppression,that would be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. Not too sure what you are referring to as the Arab wars,maybe you can clarify your point.

RoccoR said:

Hezbollah proclaims itself as "an Islamic struggle movement." Hezbollah condemns "the Zionist occupation of Palestine" and candidly states that it "sees no legitimacy for the existence of ‘Israel.’” Which is, in effect, the continuation of the idea that International Laws do not apply to the Arab or its freedom fighters.

Click to expand...

Well that would put them in the same league as Israel then but Hizbollah do not claim to be some shining beacon of democracy like Israel does and has not murdered half the people that Israel has. I wonder if you think that a country set up by western powers in face of opposition by the people who actually lived there is legit? If the UN came to America and took California and gave it back to the Mexicans would you be supporting them as a legit country? Of course the Mexican have a better claim to California than the Israelis do to Palestine,much better.

Hezbollah has evolved. While the original intent in 1985 was about the incursion into Lebanon, it is much broader than that now. There is no Israeli incursion in Lebanon now; the mission of Hezbollah has moved forward from a defensive justification to an offensive posture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that you do not know what you are talking about here.The Israelis airforce make illegal incursions into Lebanon on a virtual daily basis,so we can take your claims as an uneducated guess.Hizbollah are still defending against Israeli attacks.

Giap said:

Well that would put them in the same league as Israel then but Hizbollah do not claim to be some shining beacon of democracy like Israel does and has not murdered half the people that Israel has. I wonder if you think that a country set up by western powers in face of opposition by the people who actually lived there is legit? If the UN came to America and took California and gave it back to the Mexicans would you be supporting them as a legit country? Of course the Mexican have a better claim to California than the Israelis do to Palestine,much better.

Click to expand...

New Mexico would of been a better example. California wasn't part of Mexico, it was the Republic of California at the time of the Mexican-American War.

Giap, et al,

Ah yes, the 1948 event. Thought Hezbollah was created in 1985, more than three decades later.

Giap said:

• So the original cause of the actions was that western powers handed over to European Jews someone elses land and said they could have a country there.
  
• The legal inhabitants of that land,lets call them Palestinians were not happy about that and fought against it just like anybody else would anywhere in the world.
  
• The illegal immigrants,lets call them the Israelis then went on to steal more land and the locals fought back with what they had but they were not backed up by the biggest military power on the planet.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

• original cause

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to create Israel out of the WWI British Mandate (Ottoman Empire Carve-out). But in 1948, after three (3) decades of military administration after four (4) centuries of Ottoman control (1516 to 1918). What is called Palestine, wasn't under Palestinian control for 400 years (soon to be 500 years).

The "LEGAL" inhabitants is who the territorial government says is the "legal." Whether the territory was controlled by the Ottomans or under the British Mandate. On 15 MAY 1948, Israel declares independence and the Israeli Provisional Government is established. On that day, the Arab armies from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs was ultimately caused by the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. On 11 May, 1949, at the 207th Plenary Meeting, Israel was invited to take its place in the General Assembly.

On 10 June, 1967, at the end of the 1967 War, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip were captured from Egypt; the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem captured from Jordan; and the Golan Heights were captured from Syria. This expanded, by conquest, the border lines; since then, modified.

• someone else's land

Well it may have been "someone elses land;" but it wasn't Palestinian.

• legal inhabitants

The landlord decides who is the legal/illegal inhabitants. The Palestinian Arabs, as hostile inhabitants, set the conditions which resulted in eviction. Captured territory is what it is.

Giap said:

So the original cause of the actions was that western powers handed over to European Jews someone elses land and said they could have a country there.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Hezbollah was not in play for nearly 4 decades later. It was a late comer into the fray. I will admit that it's position states:


I don't believe that Hezbollah is actually looking for peaceful terms.

As far as Israeli incursions by air, these are in self defense. Any reasonable observer would come to that conclusion. Hezbollah is a agent provocateur along the border.

Most Respectfully,
R

David said:

New Mexico would of been a better example. California wasn't part of Mexico, it was the Republic of California at the time of the Mexican-American War.

Click to expand...

Actually it was apart of Mexico,I suggest you do a little more research pre the short lived republic of California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California

Giap said:

Actually it was apart of Mexico,I suggest you do a little more research pre the short lived republic of California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California

Click to expand...

California declared independence and removed Mexican influence from the region. The fact that it was snuffed out by the US doesn't change the fact that it wasn't part of Mexico. To say California was Mexican is like saying Texas was as well.

RoccoR said:

Giap, et al,

Ah yes, the 1948 event. Thought Hezbollah was created in 1985, more than three decades later.

Click to expand...

It was set up in the early 1980's but being as you were talking about the PLO(The Palestinians) I answered about them.If you asked about Hizbollah I would have answered about them instead.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to create Israel out of the WWI British Mandate (Ottoman Empire Carve-out). But in 1948, after three (3) decades of military administration after four (4) centuries of Ottoman control (1516 to 1918). What is called Palestine, wasn't under Palestinian control for 400 years (soon to be 500 years).

Click to expand...

Which still gives them a better claim than the Jews who had all but left the land thousands of years ago. In 1850 according to the League of Nations in their 1920 preliminary report on Palestine there were no more than a hand full of Jews in Palestine. There were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living there though and their ancestors had been there since the times of the Canaanites. DNA evidence states they are descendants of those ancient people.

The "LEGAL" inhabitants is who the territorial government says is the "legal." Whether the territory was controlled by the Ottomans or under the British Mandate. On 15 MAY 1948, Israel declares independence and the Israeli Provisional Government is established. On that day, the Arab armies from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs was ultimately caused by the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. On 11 May, 1949, at the 207th Plenary Meeting, Israel was invited to take its place in the General Assembly.

Click to expand...

The legal inhabitants were/are the Palestinians,Israel was just a colony set up by the west and that was not right. Virtually all the Jews who lived there at the time of the partition were illegal settlers.The ultimate displacement of the Palestinians was planned by the zionist founders of Israel long before 1948. You should have a look into that and what plans they had.The Palestinians were mostly forced off their land by the Israeli military,even Israeli historians agree on that point and the evidence is pretty much overwhelming.

On 10 June, 1967, at the end of the 1967 War, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip were captured from Egypt; the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem captured from Jordan; and the Golan Heights were captured from Syria. This expanded, by conquest, the border lines; since then, modified.

Click to expand...

In a war started by Israel but as I explained above that was the plan all along to steal more land. Even Israel leaders at the time have stated that Egypt was no threat to them but they attacked them anyway.Israeli and CIA intelligence reports from the time also state that.Rabin,Dayan and others have come forth after the events to state that Israel started things. The West Bank,Golan and Gaza are all illegally occupied as attested to by the UN and the International community.

Well it may have been "someone elses land;" but it wasn't Palestinian.

Click to expand...

It certainly was their land. When empires move out the people who inhabit that area get their land back and to claim otherwise is a joke.

The landlord decides who is the legal/illegal inhabitants. The Palestinian Arabs, as hostile inhabitants, set the conditions which resulted in eviction. Captured territory is what it is.

I prefer to administrer it under the Rome Statues and the GCIV, but neither the US or Israel is a signatory to the Rome Statues.​

Click to expand...

Hezbollah was not in play for nearly 4 decades later. It was a late comer into the fray. I will admit that it's position states:
I don't believe that Hezbollah is actually looking for peaceful terms.

As far as Israeli incursions by air, these are in self defense. Any reasonable observer would come to that conclusion. Hezbollah is a agent provocateur along the border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

I am not really going to take anything about Hizbollah seriously that you quote from an Israeli run website.You do not believe that Hizbollah is looking for peaceful terms? Well you would not if you are getting your info from Israeli websites,maybe you should look past Israeli sources which can be unless proven otherwise rather biased and even false.

Your claim was that Israel does not do any incursions into Lebanon and you were wrong but now you are claiming they are defensive,just let me ask would the Americans be happy if the Chinese were overflying their country with military fighter jets every few days? No they would not so please stop trying to defend the indefensible.It is illegal to overfly someone else airspace with military fighters without permission,you know it and I know it.

David said:

California declared independence and removed Mexican influence from the region. The fact that it was snuffed out by the US doesn't change the fact that it wasn't part of Mexico. To say California was Mexican is like saying Texas was as well.

Click to expand...

Obviously you know nothing about it. I provided a link that states it was a part of Mexico.

Giap said:

Obviously you know nothing about it. I provided a link that states it was a part of Mexico.

Click to expand...

Until they declared independence and killed/routed the Mexican solders and officials.

David said:

Until they declared independence and killed/routed the Mexican solders and officials.

Click to expand...

So now you are claiming it was a part of Mexico when in your last post you claimed it was not. Why even bother posting if you know nothing? I am just going to ignore you from now on as you just go around this forum butting in to debates that you know nothing about.

Giap said:

So now you are claiming it was a part of Mexico when in your last post you claimed it was not. Why even bother posting if you know nothing? I am just going to ignore you from now on as you just go around this forum butting in to debates that you know nothing about.

Click to expand...

Yes it was part of Mexico. So was Texas. California wasn't Mexican when the US took over.

David,you can write away,I cannot see it as you are ignored. lol

Then my work here is done.

Giap, et al,

You have a very tough road, trying to justify Hezbollah Terrorist Activity as some sort of patriotic freedom fighter effort.

You can knit-pick a discussion board response all you want, deny any historical fact, craft the reality to fit your agenda, and it will not make any difference.

• The use of violence (cross-border bombings, rocket attacks, and suicide actions) by Hezbollah and Hezbollah threats (the destruction of a state) to intimidate or coerce a peaceful population, especially for political purposes IS, by definition, terrorism.
  
• Hezbollah directed attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; is a War Crime.
  
• Hezbollah directed attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; is a War Crime.
  
• Hezbollah intentionally launching rocket attacks in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; is a War Crime.

Now, having said that, do I discount everything the Israelis have done since the 1967 War (Six Day War)? No. There have been many actions taken by the Israelis that I have objections to, just as stringently; that I consider a War Crime.

But a wrong committed by the Israelis, is not a justification for the opposing Arabs, to commit atrocities. Humanity and its laws just don't work that way. Barbarianism, and the unreasonable prolonging of the feud, is barbarism. Just a bunch of angry Arabs running around and expending their efforts as if to imitate, in a child-like way, the exploits the First Sultan of the Ayyubid Dynasty - The Great Saladin. And heaven knows that the Great Saladin would role over in spirit now, to look down upon this once magnificent culture and see what it has become.

Giap said:

David,you can write away,I cannot see it as you are ignored. lol

Click to expand...

Giap said:

Rubbish. The Palestinians were fighting for their land.the land that they had lived on for thousands of years. Going on your logic the USSR could have given the eastern block to India or Iran. That is a bit of a stupid argument.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

You can ignore the opposing view and you can attempt to cleverly twist the words around, or even extend the logic to a point of absurdity, but it will not promote your point. The 1985 Creation of Hezbollah was a mistake, created under a mistaken premise, an organization bent on the destruction of a duly constituted nation state recognized by the international community.

Hezbollah is not only known by its actions and deeds, but by the relationships it establishes; chief among those is Iran. And there is little doubt in the world community, right now, that Iran is not a threat to world peace; just as Hezbollah - a quasi-proxy/ally, is threat to regional peace.

The regional conflict with Israel at the center, has many facets to it. No player in this drama has been completely clean. But as sure as the sky is blue, there has been no question that radical extremist, like Hezbollah, have been so dirty and antagonistic in it self-righteous efforts, that it has lost all credibility in its pursuit to an end-game. It, at one time, may have had a reasonable objective; but its current demands have lost much of its regional support. It is now known as a mere evil non-state actor under the influence of radical extremism and a regional state that is a sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R