Captured IDF Soldiers...remember??

Why wasn't the release of those soldiers whose captured resulted in this entire war part of the agreement for the ceasefire? Why didn't the Israelis make sure that that was one of their conditions?

Presumably, a prisoner exchange can be done after the withdrawl, but still, why not make it a top priority?

Thats what the parents of the Soldiers want to know as well. That was one of the reasons why many people were of the opinion this was not a rescue attempt, and that it was never their goal to secure those soldiers back. It was something else they were trying to accomplish with this attack. I posted the article from The New Yorker that probably explains it.

Pie

Perhaps because it wasnt their real priority just a conveniant excuse. I do hope that they are able to gain their release though.

What captured soldiers?

I thought this war was about destroying a terroist organization?

Or was it to create a safer Israel by creating a buffer zone?

Was it to sercure water sources in southern lebanon?



The reasons for the war have changed dramaticaly in a months time. Seems to me like a Iraq war PR campaign, give so many reasons for the war that people forget the original reason.

Wang, now it's about allowing Lebanon control over it's territory and protecting the fledgling democracy....

Come on, keep up!

Those poor IDF guys were just pawns and sacrificed for a cause that has so many hidden agendas and international intrigue; that we rabble will never know the real reason behind this latest ME war. We can be sure of one thing; this isn't the end of a growing and more bloody conflict just waiting for another reason to release the 4 horseman.

TPM, what was that link? Was it another thread here, making this one a duplicate?

Originally posted by Nygdan
TPM, what was that link? Was it another thread here, making this one a duplicate?

No not a dupe. Just something that might explain a few things.

Its a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker Magazine.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Shhh.... nobody is supposed to bring up the captured soldiers.
That makes it look like Israel didn't win, you see...

The war is now about the rockets (even though they didn't start landing in Israel till the Israelis started bombing... oops). Just like the Iraq war is about freedom, not WMD's.

And by the way, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Originally posted by xmotex
Shhh.... nobody is supposed to bring up the captured soldiers.
That makes it look like Israel didn't win, you see...

C'mon!

I have posted this in several threads...and asked…are is there a different resolution than this one here (again)?...cited below. No one answers to date….

“Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,
-[short snip]-
emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why didn't the Israelis make sure that that was one of their conditions?

Presumably, a prisoner exchange can be done after the withdrawl, but still, why not make it a top priority?

Presumably the afore mentioned is a condition of ceasefire…and causal elements in which to specifically "not" honor a ceasefire as well…

This 1701 thing is opaque, watered down and full of holes...big holes...Imo...if 1701 holds it’s simply a miracle.

mg

The resolution essentially calls for exactly what Hezbollah proposed in the first place: an exchange of prisoners. This is victory?

1701 is pretty vague, but so far all sides seem inclined to go along with it.
Would you rather they were still shooting?

Originally posted by xmotex
The resolution essentially calls for exactly what Hezbollah proposed in the first place: an exchange of prisoners. This is victory?

Fist-off, I never used the word 'victory' once...

Secondly, please show the diplomatic language (or otherwise) in UN 1701 that discusses "essentially" what Hezbollah has "proposed in the first place" (which could get very interesting).

mg

Well, you didn't use the word "victory" but you seemed to be responding to my comment about Israel not winning, so...

As far as what the resolution says, your own quote from 1701 links the Israeli's Lebanese prisoners with the capture of the Israeli soldiers. And what Hezbollah originally said is that they would be willing to trade the Israeli soldiers for Lebanese captives in Israel.

[edit on 8/15/06 by xmotex]

"Mindful" is passive diplomatic language; “emphasizing” is not, hence my point about the use of ‘diplomatic language’.

I will repeat...UN 1701 of opaque...and more than likely will not hold.

Originally posted by xmotex
Well, you didn't use the word "victory" but you seemed to be responding to my comment about Israel not winning, so...

By not using “victory”???... also understand I did not use the word “defeat”….never referencing either side in consideration of the need for a binary decision.

Both of these statements are flatly false:

Originally posted by xmotex
Shhh.... nobody is supposed to bring up the captured soldiers.
That makes it look like Israel didn't win, you see...

By your own admission prisoners are mentioned in 1701.

Originally posted by xmotex
The war is now about the rockets (even though they didn't start landing in Israel till the Israelis started bombing... oops). Just like the Iraq war is about freedom, not WMD's.

I believe UN reports more than adequately put this complete junk, broad brushed and biased statement to rest.

mg

By your own admission prisoners are mentioned in 1701.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to the resolution itself, but to the fact that the solders' return to Israel seemed to have dropped off the map for those attempting to justify the Israeli escalation.

I believe UN reports more than adequately put this complete junk, broad brushed and biased statement to rest.

Clumsily phrased maybe, but not entirely inaccurate in context.
The massive rocket attacks seen against northern Israeli towns during the conflict did not begin before the bombing. There was a diversionary rocket attack against IDF positions and two Israeli towns (no casualties) the day the crisis began, but before that there were occasional rocket launches against IDF targets as part of the continuing hostilities in the area. Not a massive campaign like we saw after 12 July.

Note that I'm not arguing that Hezbollah has been completely innocent in this affair, simply that neither is Israel. The Israelis have presented this as an unprovoked attack that came out of the blue, when in fact it was part of a continuing low-intensity conflict along the Blue Line. Did Hezbollah escalate things with the attack on the IDF patrol? Sure. Did Israel then escalate massively by attacking deep into Lebanon? Yep.