| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2006 01:47:20 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It seems to me that the US was not very interested in terrorism before September 2001. In fact, it was often found to be supporting "freedom fighters" when it suited it to do so. |
For example, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban ... |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 01:56:33 PM · #77 |
Please remember that the "occupied territories" were captured in response to unprovoked attacks on Israel by a coalition of Arab armies. Had those countries not unilaterally declared war on Israel those lands would have been under "Palestinian" control for the past 40 years or so ...
Message edited by author 2006-07-15 13:57:18. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 02:39:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The Jewish people used to form a significant part of the population of each Arab country, but now very few remain because of the antagonism caused by Israel. Christians in Arab countries are nowadays under increasing threat because of the poor relations with the US. |
So other religions are not welcome in Islaamic countries and that is the fault of everyone but those Islaamic countries? Maybe it's one of a long list of clues that Islaam as currently practiced in the middle east is a far cry from the supposed peaceful, tolerant religion some would lead us to believe.
I am curious, if mosques had been firebombed en masse here in the states after 9/11 would you have postulated that it was the fault of the Islaamic nations and the failure of their religious leadership to clamp down on the radicalism within their own religion? |
Maybe I did not get my meaning across: racial tensions were not so strong as they are in the modern world, allowing Christians, Jews and Muslims (all Abrahamic, and interrelated religions) to get along. I did not mean to accuse one religion of causing the breakdown, but since the tensions resulting from the creation of Israel and more recent actions of the US, there has been increased tension in all those states as regards the relevant minorities.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 02:42:37 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Please remember that the "occupied territories" were captured in response to unprovoked attacks on Israel by a coalition of Arab armies. Had those countries not unilaterally declared war on Israel those lands would have been under "Palestinian" control for the past 40 years or so ... |
Noted. Also, Israeli aggression in capturing the Sinai peninsula did result in concessions by Egypt and a better relationship - but, importantly - when the land was returned to Egypt.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 02:54:48 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... allowing the situation to go from bad to worse ever since the Brit empire fell apart. |
PS Lebanon was controlled by the French. Hence the great wine that (used to) come from the country.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 03:02:20 PM · #81 |
There is quite an impressive recounting of the position here:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis
(it also mentions the leafletting at Marwahhin).
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:22:41 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm. You seem to have overlooked some of Israel's non-violent, non-aggressive policy initiatives, like
* the Camp David Accords ( 1978 )
* the Israel / Egypt Peace Treaty ( 1979 )
* the Israeli Peace Proposal ( 1989 )
* the Oslo Accords ( 1993 )
* the Israel / Jordan Peace Treaty ( 1994 )
* the Wye River Memorandum ( 1998 )
* the Camp David Summit ( 2000 )
* the Clinton Bridging Proposals ( 2000 )
* the Taba Communique ( 2001 )
* the Geneva Accords ( 2003 ) |
'Initiative' implies Israel took the first step in these agreements. However in most of these cases it was external arbitrators who brought the sides together (e.g. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, various Norwegian ministries) And by their nature most agreements, proposals, and accords are 'non-violent and non-aggressive'
It's not like Israel have spent the last 60 years running around the Middle East with an olive branch in their hand. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:38:40 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
It's not like Israel have spent the last 60 years running around the Middle East with an olive branch in their hand. |
If they had taken that approach there would be no Israel. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:44:52 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Jinjit,
since you are most informed (from all others posting here) about the state of Israel,
can you shed some light on the recent history, please (say, 1948-2006).
What I would like to know is, the population of Israel, and its breakdown in percentages, Jews, Christians, Muslims, other. Please include occupied territories and concentration camps. |
I am definately most informed, because I live here. I am currently under the katyushas threat, unlike comfortable you.
I am not going to bother with the entire history. It doesn't seem like you would be interested anyway.
There are arabs and christians in Israel just as there are jews. But still, Israel is not part of the arab world.
Saying that would be just like saying that France is part of the arab world, as there are more muslims in it today then almost any other religion. Is France part of the arab world to you?
One more thing - we don't have concentration camps. Don't you confuse us with the Nazis of WW2.
And as for the occupied territories - we were (are) in the middle of a process ment to return those areas to the Palestinians. Alas, they have started shooting Kasam rockets at us. This unfortunately have stopped this process.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:54:32 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by cfischl:
If they had taken that approach there would be no Israel. |
I agree. However, since Israel has been created forcefully, by resettling another nation altogether, violence is expected.
The solution is compromise from all sides. And it does not seem to be happening...
Jinjit, I didn't mention Arab world - didn't resort to labelling anyone against their will. However, I am interested in the process that created the state of Israel. This whole situation stems from the creation of the Israel after the WWII ended, and after the world realized the tremendous genocide that happened. (I do not subscribe to theories that genocide never happened, don't worry). They (the leading world powers at that time, US, Russia and UK) have decided to chase what's left of the Jews in Europe and especially Stalin's CCCP out. They figured that UK is weak enough to keep control over Palestine, and decided to chase out majority Arab (of all religions, predominantly Muslim) population out of Palestine and create a state for Jews.
Over the years, Palestinians were resettled, chased out of their land, put in concentration camps inside neighboring countries that did not want them...
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I know where you come from, and I'm asking you so see if any Jew in the world can recognize what is happening right now without hiding behind the history, without trying to justify your own acts by what was done to you. Can you try? |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:55:08 PM · #86 |
And you know what the greatest irony is?
I am not, and I have never been a great patriot. If I had any other chance, most likely I wouldn't be living here.
In a way, this is the thoughts and feelings of many of the young generetion here.
But when something like this happen, and I(we) feel that my(our) own house is in danger - I(we) become the most patriots ever. We unite and become one to front all our many enemies, including some of you, those who feel they have the right to judge us.
Who the hell do you think you are? Have you ever been under this every day threat? Have you ever felt that using the bus might cost you your life?
How dare you judge Israel for trying to defend it citizens' life? If your life and your family's life were in constant danger, you'd be surprised how many rules you are wiling to bend.
And somehow, Israel has shown more humanity and more consideretion then any of the arab countries around it.
I had enough of this argument here. I am sorry I ever got into it.
Again - I would like to thank all those who understand and defend Israel's steps. Apparently we are still here, and we arew going to stay.
And if Hizbollah or Hamas or any other group or nation for that matter, fails to understand that and accept it - they will have to pay the price. And I am proud to say that the IDF is the strongest and most sufisticated army in the world. This price is going to be higher then you could ever imagine. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:55:26 PM · #87 |
i hate this kinda of threads, i besides think they suck BIG time ... people move on ...
Message edited by author 2006-07-15 16:55:47.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 04:59:32 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I know where you come from, and I'm asking you so see if any Jew in the world can recognize what is happening right now without hiding behind the history, without trying to justify your own acts by what was done to you. Can you try? |
I can not do that. My life is the history you claim I am hiding behind.
As I said, I am not a great patriot. But I can not not-justify my country's actions when my house is under the threat of bombs while we speak.
I think you got a pretty nioce links here to try and study from. History is not a one man's story. It is available for you all around.
Try to read both side's words. Palestinian and Israeli just the same.
If you really are interested as you claim you are - reading material should not be hard to find. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:01:41 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Jinjit:
Who the hell do you think you are? Have you ever been under this every day threat? Have you ever felt that using the bus might cost you your life?
How dare you judge Israel for trying to defend it citizens' life? If your life and your family's life were in constant danger, you'd be surprised how many rules you are wiling to bend.
And somehow, Israel has shown more humanity and more consideretion then any of the arab countries around it.
|
Yes, I have been under the same kiind of threat, even worse than you. ANd yes, it evoked patriotic feelings that caused people to raise, grab arms and defend the country.
The only difference was - we were defending ourselves by fighting the other side some 200 meters from our homes. We did not fly to another country and bomb the bejesus out of them in the name of defence.
This way, you create (in automated control language) positive feedback that is not stable - actions from one side cause more severe actions from another side that in turn cause more severe actions from the first side.
There are only two ways to stop this: stop the fedback (harder and harder as the time goes on) or wait until one or both sides are annihilated. That happens in the unbound control systems. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:11:09 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Jinjit:
But when something like this happen, and I(we) feel that my(our) own house is in danger - I(we) become the most patriots ever. We unite and become one to front all our many enemies, including some of you, those who feel they have the right to judge us. |
Jinjit, I sympathise for you - I sincerely hope that you, your house, your family are safe.
I also hope that you recognise that many more Lebanese than Israeli will die in this conflict - they too will share your reaction, become patriotic and upset and furious, because you share something far more intrinsic than religion - you are all human, with familes, homes, and lives that are being threatened by this conflict. I desperately hope for peace from both sides.
Given that only one side is a responsible nation state, you will have to forgive my expectation that it will have to be Israel that takes the initiative, and my expectation and belief that it will be Israel that will be criticised for failure to reign in its immensely sophisticated and powerful military forces.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:30:34 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Jinjit:
But when something like this happen, and I(we) feel that my(our) own house is in danger - I(we) become the most patriots ever. We unite and become one to front all our many enemies, including some of you, those who feel they have the right to judge us. |
Jinjit, I sympathise for you - I sincerely hope that you, your house, your family are safe.
I also hope that you recognise that many more Lebanese than Israeli will die in this conflict - they too will share your reaction, become patriotic and upset and furious, because you share something far more intrinsic than religion - you are all human, with familes, homes, and lives that are being threatened by this conflict. I desperately hope for peace from both sides.
Given that only one side is a responsible nation state, you will have to forgive my expectation that it will have to be Israel that takes the initiative ... |
Israel "took the initiative" to return Gaza to Palestinian control, with the result that the Palestinians can now fire rockets at Israel from Gaza.
Israel has a plan to unilaterally withdraw from the "buffer zone" referred-to as the West Bank -- with the probable result that the Palestinians will be able to shoot rockets into Jerusalem.
Just what "initiative" on the part of Israel -- other than its complete dissolution as a state -- do you expect?
What types of "initiatives" towards a peaceful resolution of this conflict has any Arab state ever taken? A surprise attack in 1967? A surprise attack in 1973 -- on the holiest day of the Jewish year That was really respectful of other religions and societies, and a "right honorable action" I suppose?
I believe the Jews deserve a state of self-rule in their ancestral homeland. They are willing to share, but the Arab world -- sorry to say it -- seems not to be.
When an organization's charter or constitution explicitly calls for the destruction of another state and the eradication of its people, they forfeit their right of participation in world affairs -- they are no different than any other criminal gang terrorizing the neighborhood for personal power. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:31:04 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm. You seem to have overlooked some of Israel's non-violent, non-aggressive policy initiatives, like
* the Camp David Accords ( 1978 )
* the Israel / Egypt Peace Treaty ( 1979 )
* the Israeli Peace Proposal ( 1989 )
* the Oslo Accords ( 1993 )
* the Israel / Jordan Peace Treaty ( 1994 )
* the Wye River Memorandum ( 1998 )
* the Camp David Summit ( 2000 )
* the Clinton Bridging Proposals ( 2000 )
* the Taba Communique ( 2001 )
* the Geneva Accords ( 2003 ) |
'Initiative' implies Israel took the first step in these agreements. However in most of these cases it was external arbitrators who brought the sides together (e.g. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, various Norwegian ministries) |
'Initiative' doesn't "imply" that at all. You may "infer" that meaning, but that meaning is not supported by the context in which I used the word. According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, one meaning of 'initiative' is:
"a new action or movement, often intended to solve a problem"
as in: "The peace initiative was welcomed by both sides."
So 'initiative' does not imply that Israel took 'first steps', only that it took a new action, intended to solve a problem.
Originally posted by jhonan:
And by their nature most agreements, proposals, and accords are 'non-violent and non-aggressive' |
My point, exactly. Made in response to legalbeagle's charge that Israel only respects violence. If his charge was true, then Israel wouldn't have engaged in any of the aforementioned policy initiatives.
Originally posted by jhonan:
It's not like Israel have spent the last 60 years running around the Middle East with an olive branch in their hand. |
It's not like Israel has spent the last 60 years running around the Middle East with rocket propelled grenades in their hands, looking for civilian targets, either. They HAVE entered into negotiations for peace many, many times.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:33:55 PM · #93 |
| Hey, if RonB and I can get on the same side of an issue, then solving the Mideast problems should be a piece of cake ... they must not be trying ... : ) |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:42:24 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, if RonB and I can get on the same side of an issue, then solving the Mideast problems should be a piece of cake ... they must not be trying ... : ) |
Don't worry - you have different interpretations of the word "initiative" (taking the... v being part of an...) - I am sure that your united front will split very shortly ;)
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:57:47 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Israel "took the initiative" to return Gaza to Palestinian control, with the result that the Palestinians can now fire rockets at Israel from Gaza. |
I think that they complied with UN directives that have been ignored for the best part of 30 years. Hardly "taking the initiative".
I must admit, the extent of Israel's failure to abide by 60 or 70 UN resolutions (not including the 30 resolutions critical of Israel vetoed by the US) over the decades is both the issue and now the problem: after so long refusing to comply with international resolutions, creating so much tension, it is hard to see what new direction Israel could usefully take. However, maintaining the policies of the last 30 years that have multiplied the tension (ie the aggression) does not seem to be the best way forwards.
Originally posted by GeneralIE:
When an organization's charter or constitution explicitly calls for the destruction of another state and the eradication of its people, they forfeit their right of participation in world affairs -- they are no different than any other criminal gang terrorizing the neighborhood for personal power. |
Maybe I am guilty of a little idealism - but this too is unrealistic. Iran and Syria are nation states. They are different from criminal gangs, and a political solution would be by far the preferable method of opposing, restraining and changing these nations' policies.
Message edited by author 2006-07-15 17:59:25.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 06:06:11 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by RonB:
My point, exactly. Made in response to legalbeagle's charge that Israel only respects violence. If his charge was true, then Israel wouldn't have engaged in any of the aforementioned policy initiatives. |
I still maintain that Israel has been quick to abandon the peace initiatives and engage in the quick escalation of violence: this does not encourage negotiation. Israel may not be the first party to negotiations to break the peace (this is often broken by unaccountable radical groups), but invariably it seems to be the one to escalate any matter to a new level and put a seal on the peace process until the US or the UN get involved again.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 06:09:52 PM · #97 |
Because people don't sometimes realise what a beautiful country Lebanon is, I thought that I would post this image of Baalbek (apologies for the quality - cheap lab scan).
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 06:17:29 PM · #98 |
OK, here's an example of pre-Christian era engineering in Jerusalem ... not my photos, but I was there a few years earlier, and the experience is much as described here:
Hezekiah's Tunnel |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 06:43:36 PM · #99 |
//www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1968412,00.html
Originally posted by article:
Israel sets cease-fire demands
15/07/2006 21:02 - (SA)
Jerusalem - Israel on Saturday laid out a set of demands to the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, which it said were its conditions for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
"Hezbollah must redeploy north of the Litani River. It must surrender its rocket arsenal to the Lebanese army, which must take up positions along the border with Israel," Justice Minister Haim Ramon told Israeli television.
"If these conditions are met, Israel will agree to a ceasefire," the minister said. |
Seems fair enough to me. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 07:18:33 PM · #100 |
GeneralE, in your analysis you start from the premise that Israel existed forever, and that all conflicts that happened recently (in the past 60 years) are caused by people that hate Israel. Well, if you go 70 years back, there was no Israel - it was established there by the winners of the WWII (see my other post - reply to Jinjit). That's what caused all these atrocties in the past 60 years.
We all have to realize that, while it is very easy for us to characterize palestinians, and all other arabs as terrorists (a very dangerous misuse of the noun in the recent world history, by the way) and for the media to dance to the tune of the western government(s), never forget that the same characterization is applied to Israelis by those that experience the force firsthand. Or do you believe that people there are born terrorists, and that they hate Israel (and the US) just 'cause that's the way to go.
I believe that you would be more correct to assign the "way to go" method to people here, and apply the firsthand experience and nurture to the people of middle east. (both sides for that matter).
That said, Israelis are no more or less guilty of 'terrorism' than arabs around them. (Need to find another word instead of terrorism, this one is overused.) They have to do what they do, to defend themselves, I concur. All I'm saying is that this path leads to the destruction of all of them there. It can't work this way - there are too many people to kill on either side to resolve the conflict that way. |
|
