Golan Heights

[torrentt]

I suggest you go back and read what I said properly.

Again, you are looking at things only from your own viewpoint. Others see it differently, whatever you say about the situation. Whether they are wrong is immaterial, they still see Israel as the destabilising influence.

I think you'll find the Golan Heights are still on the Israel-Syria border, even your own paranoia hasn't managed to shift it to Iran.

What's more I specifically said nukes. If nukes start flying around the M.E. a large proportion of the world's oil supply will be adversely affected, and it isn't likely to be restored while Israel still retains the threat of more nuclear strikes. In that situation I suspect you would find Israel could count its friends on a single finger, and I wouldn't even be too sure about that.

i know there are more points of view
i told you the Israeli point of view (or most of the Israelis point of view)
the Golan is on the Israel-Syria border, thats a fact, other then that, Iran almost dictates Syria what to do, i know you don't think so, but i don't care, and even without Iran, Syria will only DISCUSS about peace if the Golan will 100% be theirs, otherwise, don't even bother - such country, who supports Hizballah (its a Syrian organization) that in the last war shot thousands of rockets into Israel with not special target, just shooting to the south , all that after kidnapping 2 soldiers and killing their friends (we still don't know if the 2 are alive), doesn't deserve anything IN MY POINT OF VIEW.
about the nukes, from your description, Israel will soon be gone no matter what it does. if it will attack, it will be attacked after a world war will begin and Israel won't have friends and all the arab countries will attack it, and if we don't attack, Iran will complete its nuke project and then shoot at Israel, as they promised that Israel will soon be gone while working on that project.
doing nothing isn't a solution.

[lynx]

It's a bit OT, but would you like to tell us where those 2 soldiers were when they were "kidnapped".
In case you missed the hastily withdrawn IDF press announcement they were part of an illegal incursion into southern Lebanon.
And the Hezbollah rocket attacks were a response to the full scale invasion of southern Lebanon attempting to recover them, not the other way round.

I know you won't believe any of that, I'm just demonstrating how there are 2 sides to every story, and the side presented by your own press is bound to have a strong amount of bias attached, whether it is justified or not.

I'm not trying to take sides here, simply meaning to show that none of us can blindly take for granted that the information presented by our own media is necessarily true.

[torrentt]

remind me where does it say that kidnapping people if crossed a border is ok? Lebanon isn't hizballah's. and a war started due to this incident, but IDF attacked specific targets, not by just shooting without caring who dies unlike hizballah (the Syrian organization).

[ilw]

israel used cluster munitions on inhabited villages in Lebanon...

[torrentt]

hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.

[lynx]

remind me where does it say that kidnapping people if crossed a border is ok? Lebanon isn't hizballah's. and a war started due to this incident, but IDF attacked specific targets, not by just shooting without caring who dies unlike hizballah (the Syrian organization).

When you cross a border with the intention of kidnapping or assassinating a leader of an opposing faction it is usually considered an act of war. If your troops are taken in such an action they are normally described as having been captured, not kidnapped. Hezbollah are based in Lebanon (not Syria) and are one of the major political forces there. Don't take my word for it though, go look it up for yourself.

hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.

People live in inhabited villages, Hezbollah are people, Hezbollah live in inhabited villages. Where do Israeli troops live when they aren't out invading neighbouring countries? I bet they go to towns and villages to hide behind non-combatants.

It's a poor argument, but if you want to use it remember that it works both ways - Israel started that particular conflict by bombing and shelling towns and villages.

[ilw]

hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.

i was simply pointing out that you were wrong in saying the IDF doesn't fire indescriminately.

mistakes? get real. There must have been a reason why Israel set a new world record in the number of cluster munitions used (for a given timescale). To my mind it stinks of a scorched earth policy of mining huge swathes of lebanon around the border.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hizbollah are scum, but so are the IDF

[tralalala]

Dear lynx, can you please show me your source that says Israeli troops were going into Southern Lebanon in order to kidnap/assassin a Hizballah leader? As far as I know, the troops were in a hummer along the border road on the fence doing a scheduled patrol, as they have been doing since 2000...

If you had watched a film that was released about Ron Arad and the attack and kidnapping of the 3 soldiers back in 2000 (I really can't remember the year.. When the 3 soldiers were taken hostage, while Elhanan Tanenbaum was also held hostage), it was carefully planned by the militants - They attacked the soldiers from across the fence, hence, while they were in ISRAELI land, killed them, and took them into Lebanon.

That sounds like an act of war to me. I don't recall any Israeli troop doing such a thing, leading to the 2nd Lebanese war.

Furthermore, the initial rockets were shot to divert attention from the kidnapped soldiers to the attacking of the northern cities of Israel.


@ilw: I'm wondering if you understand the concept of the IDF - Israeli defense force. Hence, they don't act until acted against. That was the case in the 2nd Lebanese war. Cluster munitions? I could argue and say we were a shitload more humane by actually giving out paper leaflets saying exactly when and where these munitions were going to fall. I don't recall receiving any leaflets from Mr. Nasrallah telling me he was going to attack me at a certain place and time.

On top of all this, those Lebanese prats had the nerve to complain that some of the leaflets fell into the sea. Morons, should have been grateful they were even being given a date and time for these attacks.

[ilw]

IDF - Israeli defense force. Hence, they don't act until acted against.

you have clearly never read 1984

[crackerjack]

Palestinians have been offered better deals (2000 Camp David Summit. Palestine to contain 94% of the West Bank, and all of Gaza, with some land swapping; Reparations; Limited repatriation; etc)in the past and refused to negotiate.
I have seen nothing occur in the last eight years to make me believe that they would be more receptive now.
The problem with the situation in the Middle East is that their hostilities go much deeper than a simple dispute over land.
Until there is a fundamental altering in the way Arabs and Israelis view each other I'm afraid this conflict is destined to continue.

I'm more interested in Why they refused it, such as the conditions and what they'd have to give up for it.