Israel Bombings... - DPChallenge Forums

07/17/2006 03:05:01 PM · #126

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...its political wing has two seats in the parliament...

The CNN article you posted earlier said they have 14 seats.

Sorry yes - I think that I meant 2 seats in the cabinet, but I understand that it has 14 seats in the parliament (some places say 23).

07/17/2006 03:41:50 PM · #127

Originally posted by theSaj:

Israel made numerous concessions over the last half a decade. They were rewarded with an increase in attacks. Then you have Iran sitting there developing nukes and the U.N. doing nothing but playing with it's own balls. All the while, the President of Iran is repeatedly threatening the destruction of Israel. Syria is complicent as the go between supplier for Iran to many of the terrorists.

Israel has multiple sustained periods of peace following brokerage of peace negotiations by the US, UN and others. Each time one or two rockets or bus bombs, instigated by radical groups, has resulted in retaliatory attacks against other nation states, and the process has escalated away. I don't support the bombs or the radicals, but routine failure to act responsibly, proportionately and only when politics fails, means that Israel has developed something of a rod for its own back.

Originally posted by theSaj:

please explain to every Israeli just what a safer game entails? They gave up land, they maintained a cease-fire for sometime even while suffering constant attacks from the opposition. Meanwhile, they've endeavored to let the global community handle other issues (ie: Iran + Nukes) only to see nothing done.
Do tell me what is the "safer game" they should be playing.

"Gave up" or "gave back (some)" land? Israel needs to take longer to respond, and respond in a more measured and clever way. It has options other than military retaliation, but rarely appears to use them. Countries such as Egypt play an important role in brokering peaceful negotiations, but the Jewish leadership seems to have very limited patience. Ideally, I would like to see Israel act sufficiently responsibly that it gets the strong backing of the UN and an international force take control of the area. However, it Israel's constant pre-emptive strikes mean that it is often on the end of a sanction, rather than benefitting from them.

Originally posted by theSaj:

The real native group (Beduins) are very small communities. Who actually have reasonable relations with both sides.

The Beduin are a nomadic group - they do not represent the native people, but a periodic co-inhabitant.

Originally posted by theSaj:

The Palestinians could easily accept the land division. They don't/wont.

Israel could choose to accept the UN sanctions ordering them to return the land - they too don't/won't.

Originally posted by theSaj:

This will leave a remnant which will likely be divided into two groups. a) those with strong hostile intentions and b) long term inhabitants, shepherds, etc who are in the more remote sections and will be mostly ignored.

You sure have an odd view of Beirut. It is a massive city - it is larger than Houston, the fourth largest city in the US. It is/was a modern city, full of all the same things that you are used to. Are the inhabitants - who no longer have access to food, transport, power, or other utilities, and have no money for chopper rides out of there - shepherds or hostile remnants?

Originally posted by theSaj:

That is what Israel has to face. And yes, attacking Iran/Syria will lead to full scale war. One that Israel might not be able to win conventionally. God help everyone if it reaches that point.

Not a war that the US could likely win at this point: it is already being bloodied in two nations and stretched. The only realistic current option is political dialogue (an option that was showing progress until recently). It is fantasy to think that the US + Israel could topple Iran and Syria (plus any other supporting countries) too.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by legalbeagle":
Where were you in the 1980s? The IRA's head office for its money raising arm was based in New York and received millions from Americans. Millions that were used to train terrorists who carried out bombing campaigns targetting civilians in the UK. The US government did nothing about it.

Perhaps, I am not so sure I buy they did nothing.

It's been an issue that has caused many Anglo-US tensions in the 80s and 90s. I think that the US has recently instituted another ban - maybe not nothing, but has not taken the issue very seriously (eg giving Mr Adams a visa to assist with fund raising in the US in 1994 against strenuous calls from the UK not to do so).

Originally posted by theSaj:

But I have seldom heard you condem such actions either. And when you have it's either a "blanket" statement or a back-handed criticism of Israel.

I disagree with Israel's policies for handling the situation - so yes, I am critical of them. This does not mean that I support the actions of Hezbollah - of course I do not. Please stop insinuating that I do. It is not a case of " you are with us, or you are against us", black and white, support one OR the other.

If I appear pro-Hezbollah, it is because I see a lot of unbalanced criticism of its supporters.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Israel has negotiated a multitude of times. And followed thru many of those times. Meanwhile, their oppenents have seldom EVER followed thru. It took nearly a decade just to get the PLO to change their charter not to include a line demanding Israel's destruction.

As has already been discussed, Israel was brought to the table. It took nearly 40 years for Israel to give back some of the land that it confiscated. There is fault on both sides. I don't think that the timescales really help you here.

[snip]

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 18:29:41.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/17/2006 04:17:59 PM · #128

"It is fantasy to think that the US + Israel could topple Iran and Syria (plus any other supporting countries) too."

That is absolutely laughable. On what do you base this analysis? Please provide links.

Israel has defeated multiple Arab attackers at once before, the US millitary took out Iraq in a heartbeat, etc. The only problem with both millitaries is that the politicians behind them continually bow to foolish, short-sighted and self-serving pressure and resolutions from the UN and certain European nations which I won't name. By doing so, they never get a chance to apply the crushing force that is required to completely destroy the will of an enemy people to resist. That is why you get crappy situations like the Iraq occupation, and this ridiculous tit-for-tat in the middle east.

Get it straight - there are no innocent civilians. If you live somewhere with the bad guys and you do nothing to oust them yourself then you are complicit. In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah holds seats in the government - exactly who voted them in there?

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 16:23:38.

Apple iPhone 5

07/17/2006 04:30:21 PM · #129

Originally posted by routerguy666:

the US millitary took out Iraq in a heartbeat, etc.

It's over? - I must have missed that bit

Originally posted by routerguy666:

By doing so, they never get a chance to apply the crushing force that is required to completely destroy the will of an enemy people to resist. That is why you get crappy situations like the Iraq occupation, and this ridiculous tit-for-tat in the middle east.

So the solution is to use maximum crushing military force to destroy the will of the Sunni muslims in Iraq and Gaza, and the Shias in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and not forgetting the Taliban in Afghanistan ?

You say that 'crushing force' is what's needed; how many megatonnes would you estimate it would take to destroy their will?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/17/2006 04:37:02 PM · #130

Originally posted by jhonan:

It's over? - I must have missed that bit

Yeah probably because I didn't say it, and you couldn't wait to read all the way through what I wrote and take 10 seconds to think before clicking reply.

Originally posted by jhonan:

Yes. It hasn't been tried. Specific to the topic at hand (Israel's situation) , diplomacy and negotiation have been given 60+ years. I admire your persistence, but exactly when do you admit a strategy has failed???

Originally posted by jhonan:

You say that 'crushing force' is what's needed; how many megatonnes would you estimate it would take to destroy their will?

Crack a history book. You can figure it out for yourself.

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 16:38:04.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/17/2006 04:45:17 PM · #131

Israel could easily defeat Iran + Syria alone. That is what is so scary about what is going on right now and I think everyone can agree that no one wants it to come to that.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/17/2006 04:52:35 PM · #132

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, there is an implication that Israel would resort to nukes.

I think the Israeli politicians have more sense than that. They really don't want the US to take their toys away.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/17/2006 05:07:55 PM · #133

Originally posted by jhonan:

"Could" was my implication.

I hope they have enough sense and I hope Iran/Syria has enough sense not to test if Israel has enough sense.

07/17/2006 05:19:36 PM · #134

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.

LegalBeagle....words cannot even express.

First off, many of those Jews you refer to were pushed out of those states before Israel existed. Furthermore, they had received persecution throughout the centuries.

Second, Christians in Arab countries have suffered for centuries. Well before America even existed.

But the fact you are so biased helps you to accept as valid arguments full of expletives.

Your the biggest apologist and so terribly wrong. You're a perfect example of 1930's Brit. Give Hitler what he wants boy. It's all everyone else's fault. Hitler is a nice guy and won't harm you. He's just...well misunderstood.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I do not deny that Israel has entered into negotiations and treaties (almost always at third party instigation and brokerage), but these do not seem to be successful

Oh...could be the fact that "lack of force" has accomplished only one successful revolution. India. And mind you, that nation with strong peaceful ordeals has been plagued for decades by Islamic extremism and attacks.

Go figure. If Gandhi's great nation is not even able to escape the Islamic extremism. What makes you think anywhere can?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"I do not accuse Israel of being solely to blame, but it is a nation state, dealing (generally) with radical individuals and groups."

You're absolutely right LB. In truth, Israel should set up a puppet entity. "MEPO" The Middle Eastern Peace Organization. They should arm them. Even give them nukes. And let said group remain within their borders. Then said group can launch both instigative and retaliatory strikes. Even a nuke if the Islamic extremists get out of hand.

Then Israel can simply sit back and say "Hey we didn't do it. Sure we financed them, trained them, supported them, hid them, and encouraged them. But we didn't pull the trigger."

For a lawyer...you're pretty daft. Let me ask you this question. In a court of law what happens if instead of killing a man, I hire a hitman to do the dirty deed for me. Do I get to go free?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

If it could better engage states such as Egypt, and take advantage of political solutions such as the deployment of Egyptian troops in neighbouring regions to control militant attacks where local forces have lost control, rather than taking the initiative itself, it could protect itself without inflaming local tensions.

Hmm....Egyptian troops to ensure such. Kinda like the Palestinian Authority was supposed to do. Somehow, I just don't think it'll work.

Ironically, the U.N. flag has been seen flying next to Hezbolleh banners. Go figure. What sort of message do you think that sends to Israel. Especially regarding the U.N. and it's resolutions.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Compromise is a necessary precursor to peace

One might say this whole damned problem is due to Brits like you who kept compromising for Israel on her behalf.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

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.

What planet have you been on? have you read history? They've been much worse at times.

Sure, the west is criticized for the Crusades and the brutality that ensued. But the crusades were launched because the Eastern Orthodox Christian states beseeched the Pope for assistance against the onslaught from Muslim nations. And eventually they became for the sole purpose of greed, even sacking the Christian capitol of Constantinople. For which, the Pope excommunicated all those on the expedition.

But, I find it amazing that you believe all was fine years before. And let's put the Jews and Christians out of the picture. Please explain to me the massacre of the Animalists (pagans) in Africa or the Hindus in India.

Please...do explain.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

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.

So, let me understand this, you're of the opinion that if Israel just handed over the land without demanding concessions Egypt would have given those same concessions? If so, please tell me why the hell Egypt didn't give them before Israel took the land.

Your world view is tragically skewed.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I do not preach hatred: I am trying to be rational about this and have consistently criticised people in this thread (starting with the first post) that did rely on hatred.

I actually find you to speak with much hatred, especially towards Americans. And I have often found your words to have a very anti-semetic tone. You've repeatedly in a multitude of discussion dismissed evidence.

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.

Perhaps not, but at least they brought the branch to the table and actually gave some olives in good faith. And did so on almost all of those occasions. Please show me where that was done by the other side?

Originally posted by "Jinjit":

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?

Funny you say that, with so many people thinking like LegalBeagle, it may soon very well be the time that we refer to France as part of the Muslim world.

Originally posted by "srdanz":

I agree. However, since Israel has been created forcefully, by resettling another nation altogether, violence is expected.

The little known fact is that most Palestinians were re-settled Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians. Furthermore, there was a near equal number of resettled Jews forced out of Arab states. I strongly doubt that the Arab nations would be willing to restore all the land of the Jews they forced out in the 20th century. Let alone Europe following suit.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I think that they complied with UN directives that have been ignored for the best part of 30 years. Hardly "taking the initiative".

Hey LegalBS, answer me this. You've made the statement regarding nation states. a) Who is Israel to take an initiative with if there is no state to be the requirment for obligation in your arguments b) where the !@#$ is your condemnation of the Palestinian Authority, which was given a semi-autonomous state and the authority to address such?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I must admit, the extent of Israel's failure to abide by 60 or 70 UN resolutions

Why do you expect Israel or any nation to be obligated to an entity like the U.N. An entity that gives a dictatorship equal say as the democratic nation of Australia. An entity that accepts Sudan and Syria as qualified to be on the Human Rights Committees. Kofi Annan has repeatedly, IMHO, shown favoritism.

The U.N. is a shell game. It passes resolutions upon resolutions. It does little about them. So it'll pass hundreds of resolutions against Israel. But since Islamic extremism does not function on the state level no resolution will be passed. It becomes a unilateral condemnation. And that is to be respected?

Not by me...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I still maintain that Israel has been quick to abandon the peace initiatives and engage in the quick escalation of violence:

How about we make a deal. I will sign a peace of paper acknowledging LegalBeagle's right to exist and cross out the line of paper that says LegalBeagle should be drowned in a swimming pool.

In return, you will move all of your belonging out of the U.K. as well as your presence.

Um, okay, now you sell your house and move. And I still refuse to sign the problem. Cause that's what Israel has done on a couple of occasions and they couldn't even get the paper changed.

Do you get the picture. (Doubt it...I'd probably need an 800gigapixel photo for you to get it.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Because people don't sometimes realise what a beautiful country Lebanon is,

Yup...it's quite beautiful. It was famed for it's great cedars at one time. Um, gee...so are you insinuated that the beauty of the land is at issue?

Or that one should not defend yourself because of the beauty of the environment?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

It is quite apparent that the political distinction between the US and the rest of the world's view of Israeli foreign action percolates down throughout large parts of the US. I am not sure if either of us is "right" (in fact, I am certain that no one has the right answer), but the majority verdict in international politics most definitely supports my contention. The US just happens to be a (if not "the") powerful exception, without which Israel would have been pulled into line many years ago.

Yes, much of Europe may feel such. But as they an unbiased source? Europe does much pandering to the Muslim world due to it's large and very vocal muslim population. Europe also does not have the best track record when it comes to Jews and anti-semitism (can I say it has the worst).

And yes, you may have a couple of dozen nation states in agreement. Well, here in the U.S.A. (and I'll give you a bit of insight.... U.S.A. = United States of America), we have 50 nationstates which have formed a singular union. So I consider that more votes than Europe.

You also state the universalness of your statements. But I've found almost every Indian (Asian Indian) I have encountered seems to have strong support for Israel. Not sure if that is universal. But India is one of the largest populations in the world.

*shrug*

That said, and the fact that we know France will vote the opposite of anything the U.S. does. If the U.S. voted to end world hunger, France would find some reason to vote for it's continued existance.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I don't know whether it matters to you that pretty much every other government voices and independent international body voices a different opinion to the US stance - I don't know if that gets communicated to the US public as a matter of course.

It does, and we have strong debates here. But we related to Israel much more than we do the islamic terrorists.

It may also be the fact that most Americans have difficulty taking seriously any government who's citizens wear Speedo's. But that may be coincidence and have no bearing on direct causality.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The stereotypical view of the US is to see an insular state that cares for no other international voice, convinced of its own superiority:

You mean Great Britain and all the other European powers before they lost their empires?

Originally posted by "jhonan":

"See, the irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this s**t," Mr Bush told Mr Blair in a discussion before a G8 summit lunch.

An excellent quote, and as I recall, they were referring to Iran. And yes, Iran does need to stop instigating s**t all over the region.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Jews were not the original settlers of Israel.

Nope, they were Cananites, Philistines, etc. Which have essentially died out. The Palestinians of today bear no relation to the Philistines of yester millenia. They're for the most part Syrians, Egyptians, etc.

Originally posted by "jhonan":

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.

This is potentially good news.

a) it could bring an end to the violence
b) may even strengthen the Lebanese government

Truly, though, I think Israel should also offer to rebuild the damage and make reperations for the loss of civilian life should the Lebanon government seek the removal of Hezbolleh.

Originally posted by "srdanz":

No other state exists where some parts of its population are unwelcome and considered citizens of the 2nd order. (Except, perhaps, US until the Civil Rights movement in the 60s)

I never cease to be amazed by such conclusions. How we are able to so easily conclude such and dismiss a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Bath Separatists in Spain
Irish independents in Great Britain

Just to name two.

Originally posted by "Flash":

Legalbeagle - your positions remind me of the consoler to a small child who has been bullied on the playground, only to be told that they just need to be nicer to the other children.

((((((((((((((((((HUGS FLASH)))))))))))))))))))))

Thank you so much. I know I may seem insane to some. But in 5th/6th grade I found myself constantly bullied. Though I was strong enough to beat up any of the bullies I shied from doing so for fear of getting in trouble. This only brought on more assaults. I even walked away from fights, the result of which landed me in eating my lunches in the office. The bullies were seldom punished. I was nearly always condemned. Oh, they'd express that they just didn't know what to do nor how to stop the bullies so they just kept me in the office.

I must have written near a 100,000 times "I will not fight" or some other sentence. And I never thru a single punch. So, on a very very personal level I understand what Israel has had to deal with regarding both the U.N. and it's antagonists. And to put it frankly, none of the crap that the U.N. or legalbeagle mentions works.

It does NOT take two to start a fight, outside of the mere existence of two entities. Only one entity must be aggressive. And no matter how much the latter wishes to avoid a fight, he cannot if the other party desires it.

Now, come to lesson II. Throwing the punch. It wasn't until 9th grade that I finally retaliated. Once again the U.N. (teacher) did nothing. A bully slapped upside the head while sharpening his pencil. Now, here, LegalBeagle would tell me that I need to understand said bully and find out what I did that caused him to attack me because he wouldn't have attacked me if I hadn't done anything. Well, I know why he attacked me....to be blunt, it was the color of my skin...and my turn. This bully had systematically attacked about a dozen white kids smaller than him without provocation. I endeavored to do that the U.N. said and just ignore it. The U.N. made a resolution telling the bully to return to their seat. They did. "All's well!!!! Yea!!!!!!"

*thud*

That was the sound of a math textbook making it's way across the room and hitting the floor at my feet.

I endeavored to adhere to the resolution the U.N. had given to me. "Just ignore it and it will go away."

*ka-blam*

That was not the sound of the textbook hitting the floor. That was the sound of a gigantic history textbook clocking me upside the head. This time, I snapped. I picked the desk I was sitting in (and it was a fair sized desk), and waved it over my head. I told the bully - you want to see how I fight. This is how I fight. And nearly threw the desk at the bully. That was the first time I truly retaliated.

It also meant that I had just violated my behavioral probation and earned myself a 5-day suspension. Oh, did I mention this was my first mid-term. I just failed my freshmen year. I was heartbroken, cause this was the first time in 1/2 a decade I was in a school I liked. And now I knew I was getting expelled.

The end result, "justice"....

The asst. principle took me aside, had me finish my exam and told me that I was not getting suspended. "What...? Every time I had just been the victim in a fight I was punished and suspended. This time I was guilty. I fought defended myself. Even if I did not make contact I made the threat of force." He explained that he knew the bully had been causing problems, and they had hoped he would make it thru the mid-term period but they were wrong. And that I should never have been placed in such a position. That it was their failure.

Not only did I find myself not getting expelled and eventually graduating as Valedictorian of my class. But very few people ever harassed or messed with me afterwards. There fear of my potential retaliation kept them in check. There were a few smaller incidents but most of those I was able to avoid or shrug off and a few were negotiated away.

That said....if you looked at my record compared to the bullies I dealt with in 5th and 6th grade you would have judged me to have to be the bully. I was the one with 27 suspensions in two years, most of which for fighting. But I never threw a single punch.

So that is in part why I view the situation as I do. Because I found the advice of the U.N., Legalbeagle, and others as such to utterly fail me on the deepest level.

It is also why, I have the utmost respect for men like GeneralE, who are devoted pacifists but not cowards. And bold enough to label wrong where it is wrong. IMHO, that is the type of man the world needs to listen to.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The real reason, I think, is to focus international criticism on Iran (key in the light of the nuclear threat and recent politics). Iran does have close links with the militant wing of Hezbollah, and pressure needs to be applied at all levels.

Pressure...what sort of pressure. "Bad bad Iran" pressure? Sanctions which will kill the poor as the rulers dine on delicacies? Please.....give me an example of this "pressure" you speak of?

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/17/2006 05:21:14 PM · #135

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Get it straight - there are no innocent civilians. If you live somewhere with the bad guys and you do nothing to oust them yourself then you are complicit. In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah holds seats in the government - exactly who voted them in there?

The people did... that's who. It's called democracy. You may not like it and it may not meet your standards... but that is life.

Go back and read YOUR history books and you may find that certain other countries peoples rose up against a foreign occupier.

Ray

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 17:30:48.

07/17/2006 05:39:35 PM · #136

Originally posted by RayEthier:

The people did... that's who.

Yes, hence the line of thought "there are no innocent civilians".

Thanks for playing

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/17/2006 05:40:22 PM · #137

Originally posted by theSaj:

...I have the utmost respect for men like GeneralE, who are devoted pacifists but not cowards. And bold enough to label wrong where it is wrong. IMHO, that is the type of man the world needs to listen to.

Indeed, and succinct too!!!

Ray

07/17/2006 05:40:48 PM · #138

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Israel has multiple sustained periods of peace following brokerage of peace negotiations by the US, UN and others.

Funny, considering I've followed this topic for a few decades, I've noticed an increase in hostile activities after peace arrangements. It's generally accepted historically,...as said hostiles endeavor to derail the peace process.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"Gave up" or "gave back (some)" land?

Gave up, not back, both what we call Palestinians & Israelis, are for the most part immigrants.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Israel needs to take longer to respond, and respond in a more measured and clever way.

Please do share oh most clever one....

"It has options other than military retaliation, but rarely appears to use them."

LIKE WHAT?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Ideally, I would like to see Israel act sufficiently responsibly that it gets the strong backing of the UN and an international force take control of the area.

expletive the U.N.

It's a cesspool. Why should Israel trust the U.N. to help when it's flag flies right next to Hezbollah forces?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

However, it Israel's constant pre-emptive strikes mean that it is often on the end of a sanction, rather than benefitting from them.

Now now LB....are Israel's attacks pre-emptive or retaliatory. I thought we were just accusing them of retaliating. I love how you forever diminish the aspect of Israel's protagonists at every opportunity.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The Beduin are a nomadic group - they do not represent the native people, but a periodic co-inhabitant.

Yes, yes....when the !@#$ was the last time you met a Beduin tribe? Just cause they're nomads doesn't mean they walk around the whole world.

Beduins are pretty much the only group that one could really call indigenous to the area. And they do travel thru, though less so with the tighter borders of our the past couple centuries.

That said, most of the others parties mentioned are immigrants (Israeli & Palestinians). Though some Syrians, Egyptians, and Jews have lived in the area for centuries.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Israel could choose to accept the UN sanctions ordering them to return the land - they too don't/won't.

*cough cough* LegalBS

They did accept them, 1948. Several wars against them later....well.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Yes, and there are less people living in New Orleans since the hurricane knocked out power and modern conveniences.

The city proper will remain, but it is likely that if a cease-fire/truce and settlement are not achieved that surrounding said area will diminish. This is a sad thing as Lebanon was really making some progress with more autonomy as a political entity.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The only realistic current option is political dialogue (an option that was showing progress until recently).

In other words, no option exists. Cause frankly, I saw little progress. But I am sure you did. Because you saw Israel giving up land, destroying it's own settlements and towns, yup. Much progress for you case. Much for the Palestinians. Can you PLEASE POINT TO ONE SMIDGEON IOTA OF PROGRESS THAT ISRAEL RECEIVED?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

This does not mean that I support the actions of Hezbollah - of course I do not.

You're a constant apologist for them. No, I don't adhere to the black & white crap. But I do adhere to Black & Black or White & White crap. That means, condemn away....but condemn all parties. Or tolerate/ignore/accept all parties.

But you're one-sidedness is to me the epitomy of evil. "I will accept any condemnation so long as that condemnation applies to all equivalent actions and not only me doing said action."

I seldom ever hear you address the issues of the other side. You mitigate on every opportunity.

1. You mitigate the attacks on Israel for being non-state activities.
2. You mitigate the numerous attacks on Israel by Arab nation states.
3. You mitigate the issue of the Jews who were forced from their homes by the Arabs
4. You mitigate Israel's right to exist.

You are merely an apologist for the extremists.

07/17/2006 05:41:31 PM · #139

QUESTIONS FOR LEGALBEAGLE:

1)
How frickin hard is it to chain a single line on a piece of paper for peace?

(You seem to mitigate every endeavor by Israel with vehemenence. Everything Israel did was too little too late. But the lack of changing a couple of sentences in a paper document as agreed upon get's no retort.)

2)
What do you suggest regarding the 1/2 a million Jews who were forced out of their land. Why do you never address said fact? I do not believe you have ever once advocated the Arab states make reperations to the Jews who lived in the middle-east for millenia continually.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

07/17/2006 05:44:37 PM · #140

theSaj for president!

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

07/17/2006 05:55:03 PM · #141

Actually,

I've kinda liked the idea of running Harrison Ford & James Earl Jones fro President & VP.

I mean, Harrison played the role really well. Reagan was a 2-bit actor, think what a better president a good actor like Ford could be. Women like him. Men see him as a man's man but not afraid to show his emotions.

And James Earl Jones, who could debate the voice of God/Mufasa/Vader. "If you vote peace will come!" or "Al Gore never told you the truth....I am your father!" Plus he'd pull a lot of the black vote.

Republicans and Democrats like their movies. So both parties would lose substantial part of their bases. We could finally have a third ticket capable of winning.

Jinjit

07/17/2006 05:56:12 PM · #142

how long are you planing on going with your pathetic discussion?
how bored are you? Don't you have work to do? mouth to feed? video games to play?

You go on and on and on with your stupid debate, arguing about something you never took any part of and probably will never take any part of. Critisizing those whom shoes you have never tried to wear and talking more crap then I have ever seen in my whole life! and I am older then the most of you!

If you are so smart and you know all the answers, go offer it to the Hizbollah. I am sure your opinion will be appreciated there. Much more then it is here, is for sure.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

07/17/2006 06:15:18 PM · #143

Even thought this is the "rant" section, please do not start calling each other names (such as "daft"). As someone else put it in much better words than I could ever come up with:

"... considering the relative civility demonstrate by all of the players to date we should strive to maintain proper decorum. Given the very nature of this thread... I believe it incumbent that all resist any attempt at character assassination."

Thanks!

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

07/17/2006 07:04:05 PM · #144

Originally posted by routerguy666:

theSaj for president!

Chaotic/neutral non-existent God, NOOOOOOOO!!

Originally posted by Jinjit:

how long are you planing on going with your pathetic discussion?

How much time do you have?

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/17/2006 07:20:31 PM · #145

Originally posted by Jinjit:

how long are you planing on going with your pathetic discussion? how bored are you? Don't you have work to do? mouth to feed? video games to play?

I'm afraid it's not that easy. You see, what's happening over there is already affecting all of us. And it will continue to affect us for as long as the region remains unstable.

This thread is not compulsory, you don't have to read it. I'm a bit disappointed that someone who is experiencing things first-hand doesn't have something more to contribute to the debate.

07/17/2006 08:03:31 PM · #146

I am not sure I have the stamina to go through all of the points. Your selective quoting of a week's worth of discussion and topics is pretty frustrating. I will make a couple of general points.

Let's just look at a couple of your odd interpretations.

Originally posted by theSaj:

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.

LegalBeagle....words cannot even express.

First off, many of those Jews you refer to were pushed out of those states before Israel existed. Furthermore, they had received persecution throughout the centuries.

Second, Christians in Arab countries have suffered for centuries. Well before America even existed.

But the fact you are so biased helps you to accept as valid arguments full of expletives.

How many Jewish quarters have you visited in the Middle East? They are called "Mellahs". One exists in pretty much every major historical city throughout the middle east. I have visited them in cities from Aleppo to Damascus to Beirut to Marrakesh to Cairo. 50 years ago they were full of Jewish people, much in the way that the Christian quarters are still full of Christians, living in a well established but slightly uneasy peace with their neighbours. The history books miught tell you about general sweeps of history, you might be able to point to specific instances of mistreatment, but you do not get a feel for the reality of everyday life for great swathes of society. The Mellahs are occupied by only a handful of Jews nowadays, if any, following the growth in tension and the simultaneous transition of a people from the cities of which they formed a part to the new state of Israel. I am not being biased: Israel both emptied the Mellahs and resulted in a tension. I am not blaming Israel in some way, but I am making an observation.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Read your history books. Read about the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Revolution of Roses in Georgia, the Peaceful revolution in East Germany, just to name three very recent examples.

India's problems were caused by the division with Pakistan, particularly re: Kashmir, not obtaining its independence. The greater violence was perpetrated by the Sikhs.

Originally posted by theSaj:

For a lawyer...you're pretty daft. ...

Do you get the picture. (Doubt it...I'd probably need an 800gigapixel photo for you to get it.)

Glad to see that the familiar name calling and bully boy insults are back - your contributions wouldn't be the same without them.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But, I find it amazing that you believe all was fine years before. And let's put the Jews and Christians out of the picture. Please explain to me the massacre of the Animalists (pagans) in Africa or the Hindus in India.

Please...do explain.

More tangential, utter irrelevance.

Of course you can pick out a dozen or a hundred more examples of persecution of Jews throughout history. But you pick out isolated incidents, you don't seem to have any feel for the general history of the region.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
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.

So, let me understand this, you're of the opinion that if Israel just handed over the land without demanding concessions Egypt would have given those same concessions? If so, please tell me why the hell Egypt didn't give them before Israel took the land. Your world view is tragically skewed.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Okay - I will try and explain this in more simple terms: when Israel captured land from Egypt, there was huge tension and massive resentment. Israel obtained concessions by handing the land back: I am supporting your view that aggression can result in better relationships, but importantly only where it is possible to reverse the cause of tension by handing back the land (reasonably intact). In order for Israel to benefit from concessions in the future. My point was that if Israel destroys the land, or refuses to give it back, it is not likely successfully to wring the concessions it is demanding.

Originally posted by theSaj:

What evidence? Please point to a time when I have suggested something equivalent to accusing all Muslims of being child haters for encouraging their children to be suicide bombers (one of your gems).

I am pro- many things about the US. I do not care for the administration's seemingly unquestioning support (against world opinion) for Israel. I will criticise that policy, and am concerned by the extent to which it seems to represent the views of the broader population.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Erm - such as every time when Israel and surrounding nations were brought to the table and a period of sustained peace followed? Or is it "always" the fault of the Arabs (because they are dirty child haters?).

Originally posted by the Saj:

Funny you say that, with so many people thinking like LegalBeagle, it may soon very well be the time that we refer to France as part of the Muslim world.

Israel is more regaularly regarded as close to Europe (ever see Eurovision?). No idea where Jinjit got this idea, given that France is a massively Catholic country. Sounds like scaremongering (the "evil Islam spreading across Europe").

Originally posted by theSaj:

What are you talking about? Hamas and Palestine? It has historically not very different from Hezbollah and Lebanon (which you accepted were distinct). I support the burgeoning steps of Hamas towards diplomacy (now wiped out). I condemn all the violence of the militants (Hamas and Hezbollah and others). I condemn Iran's position, and strongly believe that it must not be allowed to develop the bomb. I strongly support the establishment of control throughout the region as I have said several times and you choose to ignore. But I cannot support the destruction of a nation state by another acting unilaterally in pursuit of a militant organisation.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Thank goodness we have the US to decide for us all. The UN is not perfect, but it does involve and represent nations. Are you going to be the one to decide which nations are "good" and which are "bad"? Is the solution to only let "good" countries be involved? We can all pass resolutions that the "bad" countries will have no participation in, no voice. Then, when the invariably do not comply (they are "bad"), we can go nuke them.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Just want to protect that gem by recording it. More "votes" because you have more states than there are countries in Europe. Europe does not get a "vote", because it is the world's most anti semitic area. Plus all the (presumably American) people you know originating from India agree with you, so you have the support of one of the most populous states in the world (presumably, because they are not American, they still only count for one "vote").

I am not sure how to respond to that one - you have me flummoxed.

Originally posted by theSaj:

It may also be the fact that most Americans have difficulty taking seriously any government who's citizens wear Speedo's. But that may be coincidence and have no bearing on direct causality.

???? what does this mean?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "jhonan":
"See, the irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this s**t," Mr Bush told Mr Blair in a discussion before a G8 summit lunch.

An excellent quote, and as I recall, they were referring to Iran. And yes, Iran does need to stop instigating s**t all over the region.

No - the quote was Syria. As in the state with influence and a reasonably rational leadership (an optician from London as President), that we used to be able to deal with politically and encourage calm in the region - relationships that have seriously deteriorated recently).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "srdanz":
No other state exists where some parts of its population are unwelcome and considered citizens of the 2nd order. (Except, perhaps, US until the Civil Rights movement in the 60s)

I never cease to be amazed by such conclusions. How we are able to so easily conclude such and dismiss a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Bath Separatists in Spain
Irish independents in Great Britain

Just to name two.

Please let me know how Basque (I think you mean) seperatists are treated as second class citizens? Or Irish people in Great Britain? Both countries are subject to the EU and the Convention on Human Rights that would prevent exactly that. If you want true separatists, then you need to look at the Catalan movement - Spain is gradually splitting into its constituent states. None like the others, but this does not represent systematic repression.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But in 5th/6th grade I found myself constantly bullied.

Sorry to hear this. However, you constantly misrepresent my position: the teacher needed to take this into hand. Similarly, using your analogy, the UN needs to take this into hand and stop it, on both sides.

Originally posted by theSaj:

And to put it frankly, none of the crap that the U.N. or legalbeagle mentions works.

Which would you have preferred: a strong teacher, or the right to fight the bullies and *make* them respect and fear you? Which one of you is the bully in your preferred scenario?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The real reason, I think, is to focus international criticism on Iran (key in the light of the nuclear threat and recent politics). Iran does have close links with the militant wing of Hezbollah, and pressure needs to be applied at all levels.

Pressure...what sort of pressure. "Bad bad Iran" pressure? Sanctions which will kill the poor as the rulers dine on delicacies? Please.....give me an example of this "pressure" you speak of?

Sanctions that would justify an international force forcibly removing nuclear weapons capability from Iran.

You don't get it, do you? I support violence where it is necessary and proportionate and legal. Absolutely, ultimately Iran must not get the bomb. I would prefer to see it being done by using our massive economic and political influence to persuade Iran to act as we wish. And ultimately, to enforce a UN determination prohibiting Iran from developing nuclear weapons by force.

07/17/2006 08:18:44 PM · #147

Originally posted by theSaj:

Don't understand first question.

I think I referred to this and you had a go at me earlier: I mentioned that Jews left the Mellahs and moved to Israel. The Jews were undoubtedly treated abhorrently, and of course in principle they deserve to be compensated for it. It is hard to make a strong argument for it in practice given the relative wealth of Israelis and surrounding nations now and their confiscation of large parts of surrounding land in the 1960s conflicts. I don't think that it is realistic given the current relations. I am not sure what more to say? There is not much of a point here, is there?

07/17/2006 08:29:01 PM · #148

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am not being biased: Israel both emptied the Mellahs and resulted in a tension. I am not blaming Israel in some way, but I am making an observation.

Set the WayBack machine for two days ago...

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.

You are most certainly biased.