Tweedledee: Remember the PLO? A secular, democratic state in all of Palestine for all its citizens (not one based on that abstraction, 'the Jewish people') - just like we have in Australia - Jews & non-Jews? Now that was reality - but it was rejected then by the ideological Zionists in control of Israel. As a way station to a future binational state of Israel/Palestine, the minimum the international community should expect of Israel NOW, and not a moment later, is a Palestinian state in 100% of the Occupied Territories & East Jerusalem. Israel could vacate the OTs tomorrow - if it had the political will. If not, sooner or later, the UN will have to institute sanctions like it did with South Africa.

2bob. There would be no need for ordinary people to prop up Hezbollah, as you put it, if Israel had not created them in the first place, and as they are now creating another generation of people whose hatred of Israel will continue the bloodshed on both sides. Do you really think that the Lebanese can look past the ‘inevitable civilian casualties’ or that Hezbollah or its inevitable successor(s) will be completely crushed by force?

Bazz. “Doesn’t anyone understand that there are two irreconcilable positions here?”
So just carry on killing each other then year after year after year. I was suggesting creating reconciliation, which requires both sides to negotiate – a saner alternative, I would have thought.

Both of you. Give up your ambitions to take the lot, settle for a reasonable boundary and create two countries in which it will be possible for people to live in peace.

Dear Stan

the interaction between you and Bazz and the comments of Stewth all go to re-inforce the long standing well proven principle of international relations of:

Ethnic cleansing = Peace and Stability.

The problem is, 'ethnic cleansing' is now a dirty word. Its not 'politically correct'... but by golly..it works :)

So, to me, ethnic/religious cleansing is in reality the most comassionate approach to 'tribal' conflict.

As long as there are people of different cultures and race living amongst each other ULTIMATELY there will come a time (as populations grow) where they will begin squabbling over resources.

Water.
Access to employment.
Access to Economic opportunities.
Land.

Far better to separate peoples and provide fixed borders. That way, any infringement can be clear cut and they can then fight a war if they feel inclined, and sort it out.

But in places where one river flows through 3 countries, wooooo.. now that's a tinderbox. Wars can often be fought over the water issue.
If you look deeply at Israels activities, you will see that Water was in fact a major issue.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters how one cuts the cake, how well we manage ethnicities and borders, race and culture, there will always come a *point* where conflict arises. (due to population mainly)

Once a shortage arises, the radicals and extremists take over yelling 'What right do THEY have to cut off OUR water' etc etc.... and..its on for young and old.
I actually had this experience in Malaysia... a Muslim village cut off the water to all downstream of the pipe. We didn't have a war, we just went and found the problem and they were rather red faced :) The funny thing was, many of those Muslims (the older ones) owed their lives to the medical work our mission had done in earlier years, it was the young firebrands who cut off the water.

2bob,

I happened to hear Boutrous Boutrous Ghali interview last night.

He pointed out the US and it's allies invaded Iraq using a resolution of the UN to legitimise the invasion. I agreed with that position and the invasion of Iraq on the basis of that supporting resolution.

He said quite clearly three very important things:

1) Lebanon and Israel are soverign states and both memnbers of the UN.

2) Any invasion by any member state of the UN must be authorised by resolution of the UN.

3) There has been no resolution sought by Israel, nor one passed by the UN that states Israel can invade Lebanon.

Still think the Israeli's can flout international convention and UN rules to invade another soverign state, even if it is claimed to be in self defense?

Mate I doubt you'd go that far...since you have an obvious respect for International Law and Convention.

Keith,

May I take it from the restrained tone of your post that you have examined the site?

Good point (re: Boutrous Boutrous Ghali interview) however it fails to take into account a number of factors:

(a) Not least that Israel & Lebanon have been in a state of war since 1973, which although technically legitimizing the current situation, nevertheless would not normally be used as a pretext for the actions of Israel.

(b) The fact that the Lebanese President, allowed Hizbollah, an organization which has previously stated its sworn and sacred cause to be the destruction of Israel, to guard the Lebanese/Israeli border.

(c) The obdurate refusal by the same pro-Syrian President, to disarm, but rather allow Hizbollah to retain its arms, in clear violation of Un Resolution(s) 452 & 1559, by registering as a ‘resistance’ rather than a ‘militia’, so as to be able to achieve their ‘sacred’ cause.

(d) The obdurate refusal to allow the Lebanese army to secure the border as required by 452 (the resolution Hizbollah states that Israel is in non-compliance with over Sheba’a farms). Israel has complied with this, as certified by the UN.

(e) These farmlands, where taken by Syria in the 1920’s and lost by them in 1973 when Israel beat off their invasion through the Golan Heights. These are included in the ceasefire agreement regarding the Golan Heights.

(f) So Lebanon, particularly Hizbollah, claiming these are Lebanese territory, is similar to a Japanese group claiming part of the DMZ in Korea, on the basis that Manchuria was once Japanese, and is utterly without merit.

(g) Even if the ownership (or lack thereof) is disputed, there can be no dispute that an unprovoked bombardment of Israel, by the force that the Lebanese government placed in that position (contrary to UN 452 & 1559) is a clear act of war.

The decision to reply to what at most, is technical, UN sanctioned non-compliance, with 452 by Israel, with an unprovoked artillery barrage, entitles Israel to refute entirely their compliance with 452, thereby legalizing the reoccupation of Lebanon.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008681

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5200628.stm

Inshallah

2bob

2bob

Firstly 2bob it is you who has stopped with the personal abuse...I've only ever tried to defuse those remarks with witty retorts. To say I've shown restraint is an aspersion you have cast falsely. I've had nothing recemtly from you that has required a response. In fact I've admired the fact you've shown me the respect I've undoubtly deserved.

By the by
All the points you made should have been presented to the UN by Israel.
The UN would have then decided whether to legitimise the Israeli invasion or not.

One thing is certain: It is not up to the Israelis to decide. Their decision to invade is illegal.

I would have thought that obvious.

Now do you support their illegal invasion?