Rockets from Lebanon hit Israel ahead of Bush visit

JERUSALEM -- Two rockets fired from Lebanon struck northern Israel overnight, the military said Tuesday, expanding the violence that has erupted on Israel's other borders ahead of President Bush's visit to the region. No injuries were reported.

It was the second rocket attack on Israel from Lebanon since Israel's summer 2006 war with Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas. In June, two rockets fired by a previously unknown group, the Jihadi Badr Brigades -- Lebanon Branch, fell in Israel, causing minor damage but no injuries.

Israeli military officials said it appeared the same group was behind Tuesday's attack, although there was no claim of responsibility.

A senior military officer in Beirut told The Associated Press that the Israeli report was "baseless and completely fabricated." He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the incident with the media.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080108/bush_mideast_080108/20080108?hub=TopStories

Barak: New Katyusha rocket fire in north is a 'grave' incident:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942773.html

There seems to be some dispute about what happened still. Either way, the question is: what are you going to do about it? My guess is the answer is "not much", beyond this sort of bloviating. It still seems at least possible that the bloviating is the point of the whole exercise.

Israel filed a severe complaint Tuesday with the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over the firing of two Katyusha rockets from Lebanon earlier in the day.

The rockets struck the western Galilee town of Shlomi early Tuesday morning, causing no injuries. One of the rockets lightly damaged a house, and the second hit a street in the twon. Army Radio reported that the second rocket damaged an electricity pole.

The complaint called the rocket fire a severe violation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought the Second Lebanon War to an end.

According to the complaint, the rocket fire was additional evidence the resolution has yet to be fully implemented and therefore there is still a threat to Israel and to UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon ? two of whom were lightly wounded Tuesday in an attack on their vehicle.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942773.html

Thanks for the update.
:popcorn:

I don't see any mention in the OP. If Lebanon objects to these (unmentioned) overflights (if indeed they occur) let them make a complaint to the UN. But that does not detract from Israel's rights to complain about this rocket fire.

does not mention overflights, apparently they do or have existed in the recent past. If you have info that the overflights have ceased please post it, or was your point that because the OP does not mention them they obviously are not germane to the situation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/world/main3406763.shtml

http://www.haaba.com/news-story/un-asks-israel-stop-violations-lebanon-airspace

Isn't that a bit like the police saying, "Until Mr. Smith pays his parking tickets we aren't going to investigate the disappearance of his wife."

Would you say the same thing to Lebanon if Israel began bombing them again? as in: Until Hezbollah disarms as the cease-fire stipulated we don't care if Israel bombs. Or do you only think Israel should be expected to fulfill the agreement?

On the other hand why does the other guy always have to capitulate first? Hezbollah must disarm before Israel stops overflights, Fatah must control its militant wing and retake Gaza before the road map can be implemented. The other guy must always do it first, this only works to maintain the status quo.

at least not in these cases.....ready for a simple scenario?

israel has no overflights does not know where the long range rockets are......Hizballa decides to start a war with israel and the IAF having no info on the long range missiles cannot stop them before they hit tel aviv (as Nassralla said he would)...

see...thats why we have overflights.......they help keep us alive...our preference.

I looked but all I could find was a quote from 08/03/2006. The only recent thing I found was about the remains of Israeli soldiers. Also Olmert said some pretty bombastic things in 2006 too, so does he or Israel intend to carry out those threats?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3285976,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206917,00.html

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2006/08/03/nasrallah-we-will-stop-rockets-if-israel-stops-bombar

his past is quite rich with sending rockets over to our cities.....he didnt say much about it before 2006, he just did it.....and since he is now nicely rearmed, its quite reasonable for us to assume he might try again...

like i said....we are not THAT dumb not to be prepared for a repeat of past performances. Perhaps if the Lebanese army and the UN would do their job it wouldnt be necessary but they're letting an armed militia remain in their territory.....

These were the terms for the cease-fire in 2006. Before it was even implemented Nasrallah said that Hezbollah wasn't going to disarm and the UN security workers said they weren't going to force them to, so right from the start no one was meeting their most important obligations under the cease-fire terms. Under those circumstances it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to continue overflights to do recon, had Hezbollah stuck to the cease fire agreement there would not have been any need for them.

Besides, it is not like there is any equivalence between overflights and actual fucking rocket attacks! Who the hell would it help if the UN told Israel to fuck off when they complain of cross border rocket attacks? Not the Lebanese, I guarantee you that.

your equating a non violent defensive measure with random attempts at murder?.......i always knew that the "progressives" had an flexible standard, but this certainly is a new one....

attempted "random murder"? The attack last June was not Hezbollah

with 6 years of rockets and sniping (not random.....targeted murder) previous to that....

and now they are arming again, with the local army and UN doing nothing...so they might or might not attack, depending upon lots of factors in iran, syria and lebanon....so it would be pretty dumb of the IDF not to know where they're hiding their missiles.....and those missiles by virtue of their inability to aim land anywhere......as we saw in 2006

We've already had that "conversation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=193869

begins @ comment #51 ends @ comment #100, do we really need to do it again?

As for right now and stupidity on the flip side of the issue that being Hezbollah disarming, can you see quite possibly they're saying the same thing as Israel ?

Do they think we're stupid? While granted Hezbollah shot first in the 2006 conflict, but it was also Hezbollah that mounted the major defense of Lebanon, the Lebanese Army seemed rather befuddled and ineffective at the time, so could it be that Hezbollah is saying "sure they want us to disarm-so they can invade again"
Now I have not read anything like this, so if you want to say I am "making it up" you'd be right, however it does seem a reasonable "made up".

The problem is that one side or the other has to make what is called "a leap of faith" and neither side is willing to do that, just now.

as a way of looking at the conflict...it seems your saying israel will invade lebanon...yet you neglect to say why....is it the water?....perhaps for more settlements?

leap of faith?...outside of egypt when israel does the "leap of faith thing, the "break the cycle thing.....it seems to come back 10 fold with attacks.....

I love history, Israel invaded Lebanon twice the first time because of PLO attacks across the border from southern Lebanon, there was no Hezbollah then but there is now in large part because of that invasion. The second invasion was because of the 6 years Israel was being attacked of course the first 5 of those 6 would quite possibly have included taking on Syria too.

But I did not say that Israel would again invade, I said that was a possible view. To be very honest right now no Israel is "keeping up appearances" with the "peace process" which is sure to last at least another year.

in your world view that if there were no attacks from lebanon, then israel would not invade?

but I do not know whether or not the Lebanese or Hezbollah are quite as trusting of that, which was my point.
Can Hezbollah have rockets and not shoot them?
OK I admit that "arming to maintain peace" has never made much sense to me seems a bit like wearing a "chastity ring" but carrying a condom "just in case" or if you mean why is it necessary?

hizballa to attack israel those last 6 years then?....israel was not on lebanese land...i dont understand why you or hizballa thinks israel will invade without provocation....the history of the areas shows very clearly constant attacks from lebanon to israel eventually draws an attack by israel.

how about this....why does israel find itself going in and out of lebanon..sometimes for short periods sometimes for longer?....In your opinion is israel looking just to kill people?, take their water?....find gold...use their old shells?

In the first invasion it was the PLO attacking across the border, the reasons for these attacks are well know although the goals of the PLO-Fatah have been modified over the years
One of the results of that war was the formation of Hezbollah, and while some of there spokesman have talked of the "destruction of Israel" it should be noted that Israel's destruction is not mentioned in Hezbollah's "charter" or statement of goals.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

On going hostilities have been largely due to disputes over Shebaa Farms and prisoners held in Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1559

your wrote: The reasons have differed over time.........what exactly was different?

we have all those initial invasions because of PLO attacks........and then israel pulls back to a UN defined Intl border ...yes, the UN defined it. Lebanon agreed to it at the time and only Hizballas disagreed....and who is hizballa?...a militia that took over S. Lebanon and made their own foreign (i.e. attack israel) and domestic (terrorize the locals) policies.....

lets see what hizballa wants:
To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians (and incite a new civil war....)

to free three Lebanese: all three caught on israeli soil-two for murder one for spying....

and you forgot this from one of your links:
From the inception of Hezbollah to the present,<8><9><51><52><53> the elimination of the State of Israel has been one of Hezbollah's primary goals. Its 1985 manifesto reportedly states "our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated.

____

now that we've cleared up what Hizballas intentions are, ......and that israels various invasions of lebanon have been in response to attacks with the entity attacking (PLO, HIzballa) whos final goal is the elimination of israel....)...you probably still believe israel will reinvade lebanon.

so why would israel reinvade?

There is also in the footnotes to the article a pdf* copy of Hezbollah's 1985 "manifesto" were on the last page it states that Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction of Israel" , will never negotiate with or consider anything of the sort.
In 1985 Israel was occupying Lebanon, which could have had an impact on the their statement and since they have negotiated with Israel.

* I did not post a direct link because I am not sure if pdf links work on du

if you believe what you quoted....that hizballa would only act in a defensive manner....and in fact did cross the border in 2006, shoot katushas at the sametime to kill and take israelis.....their claim is that israel has the shebba farms which belongs to lebanon...

the only problem with that view is that it was the UN that defined the border for israel to pull back to, which israel did......

so either you believe in the UNs version of the border or a militia......which do you believe?
_____

and that goes back to the original posts...In israels history, it has NEVER invaded lebanon without being attacked from lebanon, there is no reason to believe israel would invade just for the hell of it....

do you believe otherwise?.....still not clear

do you?

The United Nations has transmitted messages to Israel in recent weeks that the organization's mapping experts have determined that the controversial Shaba Farms on Mount Dov near the Lebanese border, now controlled by Israel, is Lebanese territory. The UN, which has communicated to Israel that the disposition of the Shaba Farms should be dealt with as soon as possible, has proposed to senior government officials that Israel withdraw from the area and that it be considered international territory to be controlled by UNIFIL.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=179745

july 2007....so lets back up a bit....Hizballa has claimed that its attack was amongst other reasons because of sheba farms, that at the time was, as far as the UN was concerned, Syrian territory.... (now the UN seems to want it for itself...)


the PLO attacks against israel from Lebanon preceded any israeli invasion, the hizballa attacks preceded any israeli invasion, which makes it clear that if neither militia attacked israel, there never would have been an israeli invasion

.....so the question you have yet to answer is since israel never invaded lebanon with provocation ..why would it in the future?

without reason? I did not, my points were that

Hezbollah is more concerned with Lebanon than it is Israel, yes in their 1985 manifesto they did say they would destroy Israel, the manifesto was written while under Israeli occupation and also states they would never negotiate with Israel, they since have done just that(negotiated) and they are IMHO far morew capible of dealing Israel a blow then Hamas but do not seem to be doing much (if they were bent on destruction why are there not daily Katusha's(sp?)

Hezbollah considers Shebaa Farms Lebanese territory and always has, hence the attacks, there is also a matter of prisoners held by Israel

I do not support Hezbollah's military actions however they have provided social services in the region that the Lebanese government was not capable of doing.

Israel has only ever invaded Lebanon, EVER, in response to attacks against it from across the border. Israel ended the 2006 war with the understanding that that Hezbollah would disarm; an important concession because they had been threatening and attacking Israel for several years after Israel left Lebanon on the grounds that Israel does not have the right to exist.

The other problem is that Hezbollah is illegal. A state can not have a military force operating within its jurisdiction but outside of its control, for obvious reasons. What happens when they attack Israel again? Who does Israel hold responsible? Lebanon? No, I don't think so.

You are drawing an equivalence between Hezbollah and the IDF where none exists. Hezbollah is an illegal, terrorist, shadow military operating under Iranian leadership in the no-man's land areas of a third nation that's just too weak to reign them in. When Israel was pounding the shit out of Lebanon trying to get at them, UN enforced disarmament was promised as one of the ceasefire conditions, convincing Israel to withdraw. There's not supposed to be any leaps of faith, Israel isn't supposed to have to deal with Hezbollah at all anymore, much less make a leap of faith with them. The UN didn't like how it was dealing with it's Hezbollah problem so they promised to take care of it instead. They welshed, which is the only reason Hezbollah is still around. They aren't even supposed to exist anymore, they sure as hell aren't supposed to be negotiating with anyone.

and said that is what it was, however you state that part of the deal ending the conflict was that Hezbollah was supposed to no longer exist, while disarmming was part of the deal supposedly, the deal did not include disbanding Hezbollah as you say




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1701

As far as Hezbollah being an "illegal, terrorist, organization" 6 nations have said that of the 6, 2 claim that only the armed wing is illegal those 2 being Australia and Great Britan and 4 claim that all of Hezbollah is illegal 2 of the 4 are of course the US and Israel the other 2 are the Netherlands and Canada. That leaves a "few" other countries that have either no opinion or do not list any part of Hezbollah as illegal.

Does it really matter if it is Hezbollah or some "new group we've never heard of before that just happens to be operating in Hezbollah's territory and carrying out actions that mimic the group's previous attacks on Israel?"

I mean, come on! There's an old business trick used by shady corporations where they rip people off until a certain amount of ex-clients start suing them, at which point they fold up shop and reincorporate under a new name, still using the same money and same dirty practices. Just because this group doesn't go by Hezbollah's name doesn't mean they aren't accountable to the same treaties as everyone else.

I mean, what's your point anyway? That since it isn't Hezbollah, it's OK? Or that Israel doesn't need to be concerned about it, or that they aren't breaking the cease fire terms?

If the UN does that, they truly are a fucking joke. Sadly though, they more than likely will do the political equivalent of telling Israel to jump in the lake (sea). Attacks on Israel, even when dead Israelis are involved, rarely get condemnation from the UN General Assembly or the UNSC. The UN is becoming more and more ineffective as time marches on.

After reading the articles in the OP, where UNIFIL is investigating the rocket attacks and there's NO mention of the General Assembly, because it's the Security Council that deals with complaints coming from either Lebanon or Israel in this case, it'd help to have even a bit of basic knowledge of the UN before calling them a fucking joke. Overflights and rocket attacks would be violations of a Security Council resolution, which is a serious matter, and whether you like it or not, both Lebanon and Israel are entitled to have their complaints heard...

I have always claimed the UN is a fucking joke? Well, you are prone to hyperbole, so I will let that slide. :P Of course, had you read what I posted closely, you would be able to discern that I didn't call the UN a "fucking joke," but rather I posted, "If the UN does that, they truly are a fucking joke." See, vc, that is called a "conditional statement," or, simply, and "if, then" statement. If something happens, then something else happens. Breakaleg's post was to state that Israel should be told to jump in a lake which led to my response that were the UN to do this, they would (then) be a fucking joke.

It would help if you had basic reading comprehension skills, because then you would understand my mention of the UNGA was an example of the UN, as a world body, standing silent when attacks against Israel are committed.

I am aware of what the violations of the resolutions are, but what you seem to fail to comprehend is that the UN, especially the UNSC, rarely addresses the complaints of Israel, but complaints against Israel, well, those get passed like gas from a bean-eating dog. ;)

Perhaps you (actually, breakaleg more-so) need to understand, whether you (and breakaleg) like it or not, is that Lebanon and Israel are entitled to have their complaints heard and taken seriously (of course, I don't see you reprimanding breakaleg for her idiotic (opinion) response that Israel should be told "to jump in the lake," but I won't hold my breath for you to exact your acerbic response to her).

Well, yeah. Ever since you've been in this forum with yr over-the-top hyperbole (I have to bow to yr awesome skills in that regard!), you've never taken any stance other than attacking the UN, and usually without any actual understanding of the UN or how it works...

Who the fuck apart from you gives a shit if you said *if*? Maybe there's someone out there who will get totally chubbyized if you return to post a dictionary definition of the word *if*, but me, I just find yr attempts to focus in on words like *if* really pathetic. Of course, if you bold it and put it in italics and then stick a bunch of exclamation marks everywhere, then everyone's gonna go 'wow! bta is so right! *if* makes all the difference!'

But thanks for admitting that in yr usual style, you jump into threads trying to introduce hyperbolic tangents that have nothing to do with what's being discussed (in this case it's the Security Council). At least could you add some factuality and a lot less hyperbole to the tangents? So now yr whining that the Security Council rarely addresses the complaints of Israel? What the fuck do you think the Resolution being discussed is? Scotch mist?

The only idiotic opinion I've seen in this thread is yrs, btw. And as idiotic opinions go, they're not all that entertaining. Do you think you could put some creativity into it?

Security Council releases statement condemning rocket launching against Israel last Tuesday, as well as any violation of Resolution 1701. Council also lauds Lebanese government for its 'commitment to bring attack's perpetrators to justice'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3492968,00.html

<snip>

"The UN Security Council, headed by its new Libyan president Giadalla A. Ettalhi, issued a harsh condemnation of the Katyusha rocket attack on northern Israel last Tuesday.

Libya's efforts to curb such a statement, claiming that the Security Council should instead denounce Israel's sorties over Lebanon, were rejected, and Ettalhi was forced to read out the statement himself.

In the last couple of days, Israel has exerted heavy diplomatic pressure on the UN in order to get the Security Council to condemn the attack. In the Council's closed sessions, the US and France have asked to be briefed by the UN's under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations on the incident, before deciding to support the condemnation.

In the statement, the Security Council mentions the strong complaint filed by Israel, in which the country said the rocket fire constituted a violation of Resolution 1701.

The Security Council condemned the rocket launching at Israel, as well as any violation of Resolution 1701. The statement also censured the attack on UNIFIL forces on the same day, in which two Irish soldiers were wounded.

The Council further commended "the determination and commitment of the government of Lebanon to bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack."

<snip>

"Lebanon is to complain to the UN Security Council, accusing Israel of kidnapping a shepherd from inside Lebanese territory, the prime minister's office said on Tuesday.

"Prime Minister Fuad Siniora asked the concerned authorities at the Lebanese foreign ministry and at Lebanon's delegation to the United Nations to lodge a complaint with the Security Council against Israel," it said in a statement.

The statement said the complaint came after "the kidnapping of Lebanese citizen Fadi Abdul Aal from the region of Halta," a border area in southeast Lebanon.

"Investigation have revealed that the kidnapping took place from inside Lebanese territory," it said.

On Monday, the Israeli army said it had detained a man inside Israel after he crossed the border with Lebanon. He was released hours later.

A Lebanese security source told AFP that the Israeli soldiers had "made an incursion of 100 metres" (yards) into Lebanese territory to abduct the man."

more

The two Katyusha rockets fired against Israel from southern Lebanon early Tuesday were not identified by the Israel Defense Forces' early warning system.

The IDF said poor weather conditions were probably the cause, and the residents of northern community Shlomi thought the blasts had been thunderclaps.

At Northern Command, IDF officers said it was still unclear which militant group in Lebanon was responsible for the attack.

During a similar attack last June, a local Palestinian organization, Fatah al-Islam, claimed responsibility. That time, a barrage of rockets targeted Kiryat Shmona.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942965.html

Well, this might explain why the early warning system didn't detect them.

BEIRUT: The Lebanese army denied as false Israeli reports that two rockets were fired early yesterday from Lebanon into northern Israel.

“The reports are false, there were no rockets fired from Lebanon today,” a Lebanese army spokesman said, adding that “there were conflicting news coming from Israel as well.”

Israeli police said that two 107mm Katyusha rockets slammed into northern Israel from Lebanon overnight, but the Israeli army at one point said the explosions were from old rockets fired during the 33-day 2006 war between Israel and the Shia militant group Hezbollah, the source said.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=194672&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

Proving that something didn't happen is near to impossible. It's stupid to make claims like this and then have to admit you didn't know when Israel turns up with concrete proof that it did in fact happen.

And Bemildred mentioned that the early warning system didn't go off, so I think after the initial flurry of different accounts dies down, it's what the UNIFIL investigation finds out which will be the proof in the pudding of whether they were fired or not...

Anyone that takes the time to pay attention soon becomes inured to it. Consider the "bombing" of the "Syrian nuclear installation" back on Sept. 6th. I have long since lost track of the different theories of what happened. I don't believe any of them, since all of the proposers of those theories are proven liars and almost NO evidence whatsoever has been produced. If the UN guys are allowed to inspect the site and come to some sort of conclusion, I might start to believe what they say. Same thing applies here.

Even with the UN, you cannot proceed with blind faith in what they say.

Similar examples abound.

As I said in post #2 above, in many cases I think the bloviating, the noise, is the object. In many cases these things just die away, then six months or a year later the whole brouhaha will be revived again and all the blather will be gone over again, but nothing new will be introduced. Sometimes it is a matter of various buffoons "sending messages" back and forth to each other. One of the reasons I take an interest in the issue, aside from it's intrinsic importance, is the amusement I get from reading all the claims and statements etc.

to prove whether or not rockets were fired, I can almost guarantee "someone" most likely the US has satellite images of the area in the time frame of the the launch or explosion, which ever happened- now getting them to "come up off them" is another matter......

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned on Friday the firing of Katyusah rockets from Lebanon on the Galilee town of Shlomi on Tuesday.

In a statement issued in New York, the Secretary General said he "strongly condemns the firing of rockets against Israel on 8 January. UNIFIL is continuing its investigation to determine the launch site. The Secretary General to reiterate that if the rockets were launched from Lebanese territory as is likely, the incident would constitute a serious violation of Security Council Resolution 1701."

Also on Friday, Israel protested to the United Nations in New York, after the international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon - UNIFIL - concluded that it was unable to prove that the Katyusha strike was carried out by armed groups on Lebanese soil. Israeli diplomats at the UN said that UNIFIL's failure to definitively state that the attack emanated from Lebanon is the reason behind Libya's opposition to a Security Council resolution condemning the incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943921.html