You're correct. The notion of cease fire was to Hezbollah's advantage. Israel can take out Lebanon like a swatter kills a fly. For Hezbollah/Syria/Iran to cry "uncle" and then spring up off the mat thumping their chest is laughable. Cease fires are conditional upon the parties involved ceasing fire. I'm sympathetic to the people of Lebanon but they're cruzin' for a bruisin'.
"Intellectual dishonesty?" What about intellectual selectivity? Intellectual favoritism? Bottom line remains: The cease-fire agreement did NOT permit Israel to BREAK the cease-fire. That's a period after the cease-fire. Not a question mark. This is the whole issue: Israel's breaking of the cease-fire by FIRING during a RAID makes other nations hesitant to build a UN "peace-keeping" force in the region. Because no nation wants to get dragged into "going to war" against either Lebanon or Israel. As you are now seeing. Israel should take on the Lebanese military. And the Iranian military. Chinese military. Russian military. As well as ALL Arab Muslim SBs who will join and are joining ranks AGAINST Israel. Then see how they fare. Your disagreement is with THEM, not me. I don't want to see terrorists progress. Not Arab Muslim terrorists. Not US terrorists. Not Israeli terrorists. I don't want to see hate progress. Just like I don't want to see you progress in your mass homicidal, world-domination vision you share with the Jews. Iconoclast
There is no cease-fire agreement, you don't even know what you're talking about. What you call "cease-fire agreement" is actually a comprehensive UN resolution covering a lot of issues - the cessation of fire is just a part (a provision) of that resolution. The implementation of the cessation of fire provision is contigent on the implementation of the rest of the document by all parties, Israel did violate it after the rest of the participants had violated all other provisions of the same resolution thus invalidating the cease fire clause. I am sure I can't convince you as you'll just keep repeating the same "Israel broke the resolution" sentence ignoring facts, arguments and circumstances. If you want to keep making a fool of yourself and demonstrate in public that you're just a stubborn clueless ignorant teenager - there is nothing I can do about it.
UN Lebanon resolution: ... 8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements: ... * security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed in this area; * Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state; * No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government; * No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government; ... If a solution is based on certain principles and those principles are ignored - the solution is no more, what part of it is so hard to understand?
Where does it state that Israel is released from their obligation if other parties default on theirs...
It goes without saying, it's called real life and common sense. You negotiate a deal, you put it in writing, your opponent fails to deliver but you're expected to stick to your end of the bargain? Come on, where have you seen that happen? LOL, is Pabst right, are you really a muslim? PS If you want to be anal about it, where does it state that Israel has violated the resolution?
It doesn't go without saying. Israel is bound to follow their agreement to hold to the cease fire until the resolution is voided by stipulation in the UN agreement, or until the agreement itself is voided. One side's wrong does not make another side's wrong right. That is your perpetual argument, that what others do determines your principles, that if they are wrong, then you are also right to be wrong. Annan has said Israel has violated the agreement, I think he probably knows the agreement a bit better than you or I. If you really want to lump yourself in the Pa(b)st his prime camp of slur without evidence, be my guest. It only serves to reveal the real you...
I never grow tired of watching Pa(b)st his prime lower himself to guttural language, thus revealing his utter lack of class, education, and any degree of sophistication.
Oh I see, so Kofi has said that, Annan is now law and order, the judge, the jury and the executioner. You have a huge problem with the concept of King George but the idea of King Kofi seems to be quite appealing to you, right? So tell me once again, where does it state that Israel has violated the UN resolution, what official, unbiased and universally recognized political or judicial body has made this determination?