After all, they're Hizballah. And they've been allowed to act above and outside of the law quite consistently up to this point.
"Hizbullah: We don't have to accept the Blue Line," by Brenda Gazzar for the Jerusalem Post, November 4 (thanks to Eleutheria ´H Thanatos):
A Hizbullah official rejected the UN-demarcated Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel this week and laid claim to seven villages in northern Israel and "millions of square meters" that it says belongs to Lebanon.
Wait, it isn't "Palestine?" Will Hamas lodge a protest?
Hizbullah's international relations official Nawaf Moussawi said Monday that "we don't have to accept the Blue Line" as the border, claiming that it only symbolized the "line of withdrawal" by the Israeli army from south Lebanon in 2000.
The senior Hizbullah official also warned against considering the Blue Line valid as "Lebanon would lose millions of square meters of her national soil."
The UN published the border demarcation known as the Blue Line in June 2000 to determine whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
Moussawi made the comments as he was receiving foreign ambassadors in Lebanon, according to the NOW Lebanon news site.
While similar claims have been made by senior Hizbullah officials in the past, experts say it's interesting the statements were made in an international rather than domestic context. In addition, Moussawi also said that "Zionist terrorist organizations moved the border line from the 1920 line to a new line in 1923, and Lebanon lost its seven villages and 20 farms."
Moussawi is referring to seven Shi'ite villages in the area of the Upper Galilee that were included within Mandatory Palestine in a border demarcation treaty signed by France and Britain in 1923. While the first stage of demarcation included the seven villages in Lebanon, the final agreement between the two colonial powers shifted the boundary and excluded these seven Shi'ite villages, as well as about 20 others.
In 1948, the inhabitants of these seven villages were deported and became refugees in Lebanon. In 1994, following pressure from Hizbullah, they received Lebanese citizenship.
The international community recognizes these villages as a part of Israel. [...]
Hizbullah's comments demonstrate its desire to find new avenues and modes of confrontation to replenish its bargaining power and its political relevance inside Lebanon, other experts say.
"They are playing with petty issues that no one in mainstream Lebanon cares about," said Magnus Ranstorp, a Hizbullah expert at the Swedish National Defense College. "They are creating an issue that is relatively insignificant, even if Israel withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, there would be the seven villages... There is always something else that they would manufacture."
"They are creating an issue that is relatively insignificant, even if Israel withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, there would be the seven villages... There is always something else that they would manufacture."
Which is precisely why indications of an Israeli willingness to withdraw from Shaba are so foolhardy.
"They are creating an issue that is relatively insignificant, even if Israel withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, there would be the seven villages... There is always something else that they would manufacture."
Which is precisely why indications of an Israeli willingness to withdraw from Shaba IS so FOOLHEARTY.
(It's late folks)
Have hamas or fatah made any statements about the Israe/Lebanon border in the past?
DEL: "Have hamas or fatah made any statements about the Israe/Lebanon border in the past?"
Not that I'm aware.
But Shaba (Shebaa) is in fact Syrian territory occupied by Israel (part of the Golan). Syria has been perfectly willing to cede Shaba to Hezbollah - in theory at least - as a means to continue bleeding Israel via proxy.
God only knows how it would be resolved were Israel to disappear.
A technicality with no significance. What is significant, and has been since even before Israel was created sixty years ago, is that Muslims won't treat Jews as equals (or any other non-Muslims for that matter), especially if the Jews have the gall to carve out a state in the dar-al-Islam. Islamic intransigence is the root cause of the whole damn mess in the Middle East and I see nothing changing this for as far into the future as anyone cares to gaze. Same old problem------wherever Islam exists that spells trouble; it's only the degree of trouble which varies.
Cornelius
The Golan Heights had been annexed by Israel in 1982 or so, and is therefore a part of Israel. The UN can recognize what it likes, but this is not the first time that a country has lost territory that was formerly theirs. Or maybe Russia might turn Kaliningrad to Germany, or Sakhalin island to Japan? Or the US a large portion of the West to Mexico (oops, I forget they're doing that already). Or maybe have Italy turn over SudTirol to Austria? Sure there are thousands of other examples.
Time to re-post, for the benefit of any new readers or lurkers - especially any who may be Jewish, and in particular, those newcomers who may be Jews in Israel - Mr Hugh Fitzgerald's lapidary exposition of the reason why there can and will be no permanent 'settlement' of the quarrel between the jihadists (whether Arab Muslim, or Persian Muslim, or any other kind of Muslim) and the Jews.
I will add, too, that the same reason explains why there will be no permanent negotiated settlement of the war in Kashmir or in Assam, between Jihadists and non-Muslim Indians, or in Thailand between the jihadi supremacists and the Buddhist-majority Thai state, or in the Philippines, between the MILF jihadi supremacists and the Catholic-majority non-Muslim Filipino state. It also explains why the Southern Sudanese may expect the jihad to resume, regardless of any treaties that may have been signed; and why the non-Muslims in Nigeria may also expect jihad to assail them whenever the Muslims feel able to get away with it.
Anyway: here's Hugh.
"Neither Israel itself, nor many in the outside world, seem willing to comprehend that there is no solution, one-state or two-state or n-state, to the Jihad.
"There is only the matter of remaining overwhelmingly -- and perceptibly -- more powerful, capable of wreaking great damage on those who would attack.
"No treaty with Infidel states, and Israel is such a state, can conceivably be permanently honored by a Muslim signatory.
"Pacta sunt servanda is a Western idea.
"In the Muslim world, treaties – if made with Infidels - are not to be obeyed, but to be violated, as soon as the Muslim side feels itself strong enough to press its advantage.
"The model for all time -- see Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam -- is Muhammad's Treaty with the Meccans in 628 A.D, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. "
– Hugh Fitzgerald, posting on jiahdwatch, 15.8.2006
A useful summary of that legendary Treaty of Hudaybiyya, what it was and what it still means, may be found on pages 136-139 of Mr Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad".
the reason why there can and will be no permanent 'settlement' of the quarrel between the jihadists (whether Arab Muslim, or Persian Muslim, or any other kind of Muslim) and the Jews.
I will add, too, that the same reason explains why there will be no permanent negotiated settlement of the war in Kashmir or in Assam, between Jihadists and non-Muslim Indians, or in Thailand between the jihadi supremacists and the Buddhist-majority Thai state, or in the Philippines, between the MILF jihadi supremacists and the Catholic-majority non-Muslim Filipino state
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 6, 2008 1:40 AM
Dear d-army
pls don´t forget to mention the Cyprus "problem" now you ´re at it, naming SOME of the best known conflicts between the ummah and people-states.
Greetings to all of you from a country liberated from the ummah
eleutheria - I do know about Cyprus - I was simply naming some places where 'hot' war is presently taking place.
In fact when I was drafting the post, I had a whole extra paragraph that talked about all the places the jihadis would like to put back under the Muslim jackboot and scimitar - for example, Greece and Spain. And I think Cyprus was in the list of places under dispute. But I decided to stick to the top three that have been most recently hitting the MSM, that new readers might be familiar with.
Something I have thought about recently: we of western European extraction, here at jihadwatch, have begun to re-learn the names of the heroes who resisted Jihad - people like Pelayo, Charles Martel, the Martyrs of Otranto, the Knights of St John of Malta, and Jan Sobieski. We've also begun to learn about the 'Shores of Tripoli' and the USA's first dust-up with Muslim jihadists.
But there must be heroes from the Greek resistance/ reconquista, especially from its closing successful phases in the 18th and 19th century, that we in the Anglosphere, for example, don't know or never even heard about; but that are well known to Greeks. Tell us their names, and what they did and how they did it!
The Indian posters here have begun to educate us about people like Shivaji and some of the Sikh heroes.
When Greeks know the stories of the Sikh and Maratha who went up against the Jihad, and Indians know how the Greeks and Spaniards rolled back the Umma, and heroic defences of cities and fortresses in India are as well known to us as the Siege of Malta 1565, and when the West knows grief and anger for the ruined cities and enslaved peoples of India and India knows grief and anger for jihad-devastated Constantinople...then the great kafir alliances may begin to form, and the Ummah will not know what has hit it.
IP,
Your point is true, but might I also point out that dovish Israeli governments since 1982 have expressed a willingness to relinquish this annexed region in exchange for peace with Syria...and that not a single country in the world has recognized this annexation.
I guess my point is...the final status of the Golan is far from settled, annexation or not.
Personally, I feel that - absent a MAJOR and far-reaching change in the disposition of Syria towards Israel, it would be folly for the Israelis to return the Golan.
Does the above comments about those past victories of sending back the islamists used "boots on the ground"? can there be any other way ?
President Elect Barack H. Obama will rectify past wrongs committed by Israel, FINALLY!!!!!
President Elect Barack H. Obama will rectify past wrongs committed by Israel, FINALLY!!!!!
President Elect Barack H. Obama will rectify past wrongs committed by Israel, FINALLY!!!!!
President Elect Barack H. Obama will rectify past wrongs committed by Israel, FINALLY!!!!!
Rudy, your insights are very deep.
The "blue line" acceptable to Hizballoids is the one on the other side of the fence which says "ARBEIT MACHT FREI".
"Better that the jews should all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide" Nasrallah
Sooner or later, either Israel dies, or Hizballah and HAMAS die.
There is no other possible conclusion
From Rudy...President Elect Barack H. Obama will rectify past wrongs committed by Israel, FINALLY!!!!!
That's what the depraved thought about Hitler...
dumbledore'sarmy,
If you want to talk about treaty violations let's talk about all US treaty with Native Americans before you get high and mighty.
You wrote, "A useful summary of that legendary Treaty of Hudaybiyya, what it was and what it still means, may be found on pages 136-139 of Mr Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad".
This iossue was discussed here in detail between myself and another blogger, perhaps Mo Foe or another...any way, in that exchange the characterization that the treaty was violated by Muslims was proven to be an outright lie within the context of the original treaty itself and what followed.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Ladies and gentlemen
observe A. M's reflexive, automatic and boringly predictable use of turnspeak and tu quoque.
And he hasn't yet managed to work out that I am not a Yankee...
Short answer: the sins of the English-speaking, Spanish-speaking and French-speaking invaders of the Americas were precisely that - sins. They were massive violations of the teachings of Christianity that some of those invaders nominally or actively professed (see Bartolomeo las Casas for contemporary critique of his own people's behaviour; many others also).
Native Americans can dust off all those old treaties, those that were made and broken, and embarrass the Euro-Americans mightily with them, precisely because at bottom Euro-Americans know that Reciprocity, Agreement, and Keeping Your Word are what civilised people are supposed to live by.
The violence and lies of assorted 'Christian' empires, are in flat contradiction to the example of Jesus Christ and were carried out in flagrant disobedience to the explicit teaching of Christian scripture.
The violence and lies of the Empire of Islam throughout its entire history are in perfect continuity with the example of Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga, alias 'Muhammad'; they were carried out in strict conformity with, obedience to, the explicit teachings of the Islamic 'sacred' books.
Abdullah,
My you are getting hard to track down. How've you been?
BTW, you still owe me an explanation regarding:
[Mohammad] then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234
If I can recall the question: Do you justify Mohammed's actions above (i.e. dismembering, gouging eyes, leaving two humans to die of heat and thirst in the desert; that is, the actual acts independent of and irrespective of circumstances or context, as actions befitting a prophet of God? I'm referring specifically to the manner of capital punishment, not the fact of it. Should he have done it the way he did it?
Again, a simple yes or no, please.