If you had read (and understood) the Constitution, you would know that the Executive Branch is the only branch that can make treaties, while the Senate has the check on that power by being the only body that can ratify a treaty. The Supreme Court cited the 1977 Protocols in their ruling, but the US is not a party to those protocols.
In citing international law that the US is not a party to, the Supreme Court has in fact made the US a defacto party to the treaty, which according to the Constitution, they don't have the power to do.
They should have gone to the U.S and asked us to help in getting a U.N security force to go into Southern Lebanon.
At the same time, they should have been talking with the Lebanese Government to form an alliance, to build up the Lebanese Government so they could aid in the fight against Hezbollah.
At the same time, they should have taken measures to gain popular support from the Lebanese population by doing what Hezbollah does- Building hospitals, schools, welfare programs etc...
in lebanon? Israel, building hospitals, schools, and "welfare programs".. in lebanon? are you high? people and equipment would be blown up before a single foundation was laid.
I disagree, you are taking it out of context. In their ruling, they noted a particular article of a protocol the U.S did not ratify but did not use it itself as a source. Instead they cited the governments support of the article, not the article itself.
Ok, how about the fact that Israel developed oil in the Sinai which provided energy independence for the nation, but they gave it back in 1978 in exchange for peace with Egypt. Do you know what's guaranteed that peace between Egypt and Israel? The fact that if they kept it, the US promised continual financial and military aid to both countries.
"Terms of the agreements
There were two 1978 Camp David agreements A Framework for Peace in the Middle East and A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, the second leading towards the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in March, 1979. The agreements and the peace treaty were both accompanied by "side-letters" of understanding between Egypt and the US and Israel and the US.[1]
The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.
The second part dealt with Egyptian-Israeli relations, the real content being in the second agreement. The third part "Associated Principles" declared principles that should apply to relations between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors.
The second agreement outlined a basis for the peace treaty 6 months later, in particular deciding the future of the Sinai peninsula. Israel agreed to withdraw its armed forces from the Sinai and restore it to Egypt in return for normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, guarantees of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal and other nearby waterways (such as the Straits of Tiran), and a restriction on the forces Egypt could place on the Sinai peninsula, especially within 20-40km from Israel. Israel also agreed to limit its forces a smaller distance (3 km) from the Egyptian border, and to guarantee free passage between Egypt and Jordan.
The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day."
In other words, the last 30 years of this aid money you keep harping about as having had no return of investment, has been there as part of the Camp David Accords. In the last 30 years, have Israel and Egypt fought a war?
The government builds these hospitals, schools etc... and then makes an announcement, something like this
"These hospitals, schools etc.. are gifts from the nation of Israel, they give them to you the Lebanese people..bla bla bla...it is up to you to decide whether or not to use these gifts".
You seem to believe that the Lebanese population hates israel, which may be true now but was not before. Instead a mainority hated Israel while a majority wasn't interested. If their gifts are blown up, the Lebanese government can denounce whoever did it while making it clear to the Lebanese population that Hezbollah(or whoever had blown them up) had taken a gift from them.
And in the mean time, rockets would still be slamming into Haifa and other Northern Israeli towns. Not to mention how a UN security force would appear to the Muslim world, especially since no force that did not include Americans would actually show up. "Great, here come the Crusaders yet again" would be the headlines on all Arabic Al-Jeezera websites.
The rockets have killed 35? Pretty sure more people have been killed as a result of more conventional crimes in the same time period.
They could include negotiations with Syria via the U.S to get Hezbollah to back off.
You are correct, the U.S should NOT get involved because we have a terrible track record in the Middle East. A U.N force should, perhaps lead by those calling for Israel to stop bombing.
Israel should go up to them and say, you have 4 weeks to back up your talk but if you will not then we will.
Instead Israel decided they would be tough guys and do it themselves
I am saying we are essentially giving Israel barrels of money and asking them for nothing in return, do that in your personal life and see how far giving away all your money gets you.
Interestingly enough, giving more money away is exactly what the Ceasefire Agreement hinges on. Money to rebuild Lebanon, money to help Gaza, and money flow restored to the Palestinian Authority. We give money to Israel, and as you so eloquently pointed out, get nothing back. We give money to Egypt yet where are the Egyptians in all this? Why are they not helping find a solution? Why won't they give up part of the Sinai for a Palestinian state? Instead, the Arab nations we give money to are insisting we turn the spigot back on for Hamas in the PA, a spigot that was putting Arafat's wife up in a $16,000 a night hotel in Paris. And it would all be absolutely ridiculous if the amount of money involved wasn't so miniscule.
We give Israel 4 billion a year roughly. The 2007 budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Do you appreciate how small 4 billion is in a 2.8 trillion dollar budget? I'm giving up a higher percentage of my income when I put my loose change in the charity box at the convienience store. I agree we get very little if any return on that money, but if you want to start talking return on investment, there's far bigger fish to fry in the Federal budget than Israel.
I am ok with giving money to those who need it and not getting anything back.
But Israel does not need it.
You are correct, it is relatively small but that doesn't mean it is ok to simply throw it away. I would fry bigger fish, but we are discussing Israel and not the Federal Budget.