• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Israel is suspending air strikes for 48 hours

gtc said:
Haaretz says Hezbollah launched rockets this afternoon after all.
Click to expand...

That article has been updated. (17:09)

It now says:
Hezbollah fired mortars at northern Israel on Monday, not rockets as initially believed, the army said, hours after a salvo slammed into the Galilee in the early afternoon.
Click to expand...

Shelling is continuing, and there have been a few airstrikes. But nowhere near as bad as before.

I think there is real hope of a full ceasefire. Condi Rice says this week. Is she the sort to say that if it wasn't likely?


Katana,
Where did you hear that "Hezballah was blocking the safe corridors that otherwise could have been used"? I've seen the BBC report on a few convoys and they didn't say anything like that.
 
SteveGrenard said:
This editorial in the Washington TIMES SUMMARIZES THE POSITION OF ISRAEL IN THIS SIUTUATION:



http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060730-093558-9976r.htm
Click to expand...

On a somewhat unrelated note, am I the only one who's perplexed over why a writer in a major newspaper would refer to how an "Internet site called Little Green Footballs notes that the United Nations issued a press release," rather than refer to the actual press release itself? Unifil even publishes the press releases on their home-page. (They're interesting reading for those following the conflict.)
 
Leif Roar said:
On a somewhat unrelated note, am I the only one who's perplexed over why a writer in a major newspaper would refer to how an "Internet site called Little Green Footballs notes that the United Nations issued a press release," rather than refer to the actual press release itself?
Click to expand...

Because Hezbollah control the media!
(It's True :))
 
FireGarden said:
Katana,
Where did you hear that "Hezballah was blocking the safe corridors that otherwise could have been used"? I've seen the BBC report on a few convoys and they didn't say anything like that.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find any more mention of it than this Associated Press article. That's why I was asking if anyone else had heard the same thing but somewhere else. If it's true, one would think that it would have received more attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900195.html

JERUSALEM -- Israel on Saturday rejected a request by the U.N. for a three-day cease-fire in Lebanon to deliver humanitarian supplies and allow civilians to leave the war zone.

Avi Pazner, a government spokesman, said Israel already has opened safe corridors across Lebanon for such shipments and that Hezbollah guerrillas were blocking them to create a humanitarian crisis.

"There is no need for a temporary, 72-hour cease-fire because Israel has opened humanitarian corridors to and from and Lebanon," he told reporters.

"The problem is completely different. It is Hezbollah who is deliberately preventing the transfer of medical aid and of food to the population of southern Lebanon in order to create a humanitarian crisis, which they want to blame Israel for," he added.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Katana
I found this site, which says the opposite. It quotes the actual aid agencies rather than politicians.

The WFP says it was only denied permission once by Israel. They don't mention Hezbollah at all.

WFP says Israel refused OK for Lebanon aid convoy

ROME, July 30 (Reuters) - The U.N. food agency said it cancelled an aid convoy to southern Lebanon on Sunday because it did not have Israeli authorisation, but hoped on Monday to reach the village of Qana, where an air raid killed 54 people.

[...] Earlier, the WFP said it had been forced to scrap a six-truck convoy of medicines, flour, canned meat and vegetable oil to the southern Lebanese town of Marjayoun on Sunday after Israeli forces declined to give their consent.

[...] "The decision was in accordance with established security procedures in Lebanon, under which WFP requires concurrence from all parties involved in the conflict for humanitarian aid convoy movements. This is the first time that such concurrence has not been forthcoming," the statement said.

Aid workers have complained they are finding it impossible to get medical supplies and food safely to isolated villages in southern Lebanon because of the Israeli bombardment.
Click to expand...
 
Leif Roar said:
On a somewhat unrelated note, am I the only one who's perplexed over why a writer in a major newspaper would refer to how an "Internet site called Little Green Footballs notes that the United Nations issued a press release," rather than refer to the actual press release itself? Unifil even publishes the press releases on their home-page. (They're interesting reading for those following the conflict.)
Click to expand...

In part because it's an op-ed piece and one of the points he's making is that the mainstream media doesn't always give an accurate picture. For example, much has been made of Israel bombing the UN outpost (attention should be drawn to this) yet the media ignores the UN reports that show event after event of Hizbollah using UN positions to fire rockets from, of Hizbollah attacking UN forces, and of Israeli soldiers saving the life of a wounded UN soldier. In pointing out these other events mostly ignored by the press, the blog gives a more complete picture of what is happening than the media.
 
Thomas said:
Seconded, but what is the falsification criteria for the accident explanations? That the Israeli government says: "Ok, we did it on purpose"?

This question is aimed at anyone.
Click to expand...

These things can be investigated--the depth and independence of the investigation proportional to the seriousness of the problem...
 
gnome said:
These things can be investigated--the depth and independence of the investigation proportional to the seriousness of the problem...
Click to expand...
Who would you consider impartial enough to carry out of these investigations?

As a sidenote, it's not my style to ask question after question, but I think that I have to in this particular case because the question above is rather important.
 
Thomas said:
Who would you consider impartial enough to carry out of these investigations?
Click to expand...

In the current situation it would seem to me that the logical choice would be the Unifil forces in situ -- they've both got military personell (who might not have the direct expertise to conduct a forensic investigation, but should at least "know who to ask"), have an impartial mandate and the infrastructure to get to the sites in question, gather evidence and conduct interviews.

The Catch-22 of putting Unifil to do this job is that their conclusion, whichever way it might lean, might endanger their impartial status.

Red Cross would not be suited (as they need to be seen as even more perfectly impartial than Unifil), but organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch could. They, on the other hand, don't have the ability to conduct investigations during the conflict or in short lulls in the conflict, so any conclusion would come far to late to change any ongoing policies.
 
The BBC and Channel 4 agree with the updated Haaretz article at the top of the page. Hezbollah fired two shells into Israel.
The BBC

Israeli warplanes struck several targets, killing a Lebanese soldier near the city of Tyre. Israel expressed regret over the death, saying it believed the vehicle was carrying a senior Hezbollah official.

[...] Hezbollah fired two shells which landed on the outskirts of the Israeli border town of Kiryat Shmona, causing no injuries.

The Israeli military said Hezbollah also hit an Israeli tank near Taibe [in Lebanon], wounding three soldiers.
Click to expand...

Channel 4

Israeli jets fired two bombs to support ground troops battling Hezbollah inside Lebanon and artillery shells hit two southern frontier villages. A Lebanese soldier died and three were wounded when another Israeli air strike destroyed their vehicle.

Hezbollah fired two shells into the northern Israeli border town of Kiryat Shmona, but nobody was wounded.

It was the first Hezbollah bombardment of Israel since Sunday evening - a distinct lull compared to the scores of rockets the guerrillas had previously fired daily.
Click to expand...

But there's talk of Olmert wanting one more "big push" before he's put back on the leash.
 
FireGarden said:
Thanks, Katana
I found this site, which says the opposite. It quotes the actual aid agencies rather than politicians.

The WFP says it was only denied permission once by Israel. They don't mention Hezbollah at all.
Click to expand...

My pleasure!

Yeah. I noticed the omission of Hezballah. Weird since the WFP needs the go-ahead from all parties involved in the conflict, but only Israel gets a mention.

Edited to add omission.
 
Katana,
The problem getting clearance from Israel may be this:

BBC

The United Nations meanwhile said there had been no improvement in access for aid agencies to southern Lebanon since the Israeli suspension of air strikes.

Aid agencies said they were having to ask Israel for safe passage for each aid convoy three days in advance and had not received enough notice to take advantage of the suspension.
Click to expand...

Surely there could be a blanket agreement of safe passage for all aid convoys. They are wasting the time available.

gtc said:
Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
Thanks for the link.
 
Leif Roar said:
From the same link, does anyone have a suggestion what they mean with the following:

"Not aimed at specific targets"?
Click to expand...


I would assume it means suppression fire. Standard military tactic.

-Andrew
 
Thomas said:
Who would you consider impartial enough to carry out of these investigations?
Click to expand...


It is standard practise for nations to investigate and prosecute violation of the Laws of War by their own armed forces. In the event of a defeated nation, investigation and prosecution is carried out by the victorious forces (such as Post WW2 in Germany).

The International Criminal Court was established to prosecute in instances where the responsible party refuses to investigate, however a number of nations (including the US and Israel) have refused to ratify the status of the ICC as they fear their armed forces being used for political means (the same reasoning is behind the US's refusal to allow US troops to take part in UN operations).

Having the acting party investigate possible breaches by their own armed forces is, of course, not impartial, however in any event there is no practical solution to such a problem.

The entire guilt of warcrime relies entirely on what intelligence the acting party had at the time, and the intention behind their act. As such, the acting party will always have the balance of evidence on its side - were it intending to cover up a war crime it could as easily claim it had faulty intelligence, or a targetting system failed, etc, thus making conviction impossible even in an impartial court.

Such is the nature of war.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
I would assume it means suppression fire. Standard military tactic.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Well, yes; but normally that's the role of small-arms fire and artillery rather than the airforce -- airstrikes are too limited in time to be efficent at supression.

I suppose they might have talked about tactical air-support for their ground forces as opposed to air-strikes against targets identified as part of a greater strategy, but it was very clumsily stated if so.
 
Leif Roar said:
I suppose they might have talked about tactical air-support for their ground forces as opposed to air-strikes against targets identified as part of a greater strategy, but it was very clumsily stated if so.
Click to expand...


Yeah it does seem a bit clumsy, although I've often noticed that CNN online phrases things really weirdly...

There are, of course, lots of reasons why tactical air-support would be against non-specified targets.

-Andrew
 
Just an F.Y.I.

July 30, 2006 12:00am - the Herald Sun

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.
Click to expand...
(emphaisis mine)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom