Sven said:
Selective reading Merkator???
Hamas' armed wing said it launched the attacks because some Israeli troops were still in Gaza, east of the town of Jabaliya, despite the Israelis saying they had pulled out all their troops overnight.
A statement from the smaller Islamic Jihad group said it would not agree to a ceasefire while Israeli military activity continued in the occupied West Bank.
Does not equal
Just what is proof? The Palestinian Authority/Hamas.....
Indeed, according to the Beeb reporter
the ceasefire violations have been condemned by a Hamas government spokesman
.
As ever, an action is agreed and
some Palestinian or other deliberately goes and queers the pitch
What are you smoking tonight Sven???
You asked,
Sven said:
Do You have proof of the IDF still being in the Lebanon and in Gaza - they are certainly denying the latter.
and I replied,
merkator said:
Do you have proof that the IDF has completely vacated Gaza in its entirety?
Just what is proof? The Palestinian Authority/Hamas, reported by the BBC, claim that the IDF were/are still in Gaza at the time of the rocket attack. The IDF, as reported by the JPost et al, claim they had/have left. Neither of which is proof of anything.
What am I saying is quite simple, NEITHER OF US has, or can provide,
PROOF one way or another.
So what has that got to do with, "Selective reading", I ask? Moreover, what has your wibble about Islamic Jihad got to do with the price of potatoes, let alone
proof of, or not of, a complete IDF withdrawal from Gaza?
If you wish to discuss some other point, such as (irrelevant) Islamic Jihad demands for linkages, then please go ahead and make your pitch.
[hr]
Sven said:
As to the UNIFIL report, the way I read it is that the IDF are still in the process of pulling out, and not refusing to leave as You seemed to infer
I was not infering anything of the sort. However, if it makes you happy, I will go one step further and
state, not infer, that the IDF is refusing to abide by the conditions of UNSCR 1701 which demands their withdrawal from the territory of sovereign Lebanon.
Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
The resolution was approved on 11 August, it did indeed take some time for UNIFIL to get into position, and so the IDF could make a case for continued occupation for a while. But, UNIFIL and Lebanese troops are in a position, and have been for some time, to deploy into all areas. They are prevented from doing so by the refusal of the IDF to withdraw.
Now what was I originally trying to
infer? Oh yes. Do you think that Israel is a little two-faced in complaining about various transgressions by others of UNSCR 1701, when they are themselves in blatant breach of the terms? Ask yourself honestly Sven, did you think that the IDF had fully withdrawn - and that this is news to you?
Both of these are perfect examples of all sides in the Eastern Meditterranean prediliction of playing the blame game rather than making the hard choices that lead to peace.