| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2006 09:13:56 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
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. |
I have explained this to you once and to theSaj once: the antagonism Israel causes was there initially by its very existence, and subsequently by its actions in occupying parts of the surrounding nations. Are you denying that it antagonises its surrounding states?
Maybe I need to explain what "antagonises" means: perhaps "irritates" would be a better synonym (another word with the same meaning). Israel "irritates" its surrounding states. I am reasonably sure that this is true. Equally, the US is antagonised by the continued existence of Osama, and I need to avoid antagonising my boss.
I am not sure what extra you are reading into this.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:22:13 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
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. |
Goddam you finally get it -- after every "sustained period of peace" there is an attack -- on Israel. How goddam many rockets do they have to take -- and just WTF do you call a "proportionate" response? The US, the UK, Russia wouldn't accept one missle attack, much less a sustained series, all in violation of negotiated settlements. How many chances does Israel need to give these folks to break their word?
Why aren't you criticising the attackers -- those who broke the peace in the first place? If they hadn't attacked, there would be no "disproportionate response" -- there would be nothing but a continuation of the peaceful state we were enjoying.
Israel hasn't done anything but respond to an attacks on its civilian or military population within its own borders. Since no one else seems interested in arresting the perps, the Israelis find it necessary to defend themselves -- I'm sure they'd be more than happy if the Russians or Iranians reined in Hezbollah and Hamas, but I wouldn't try holding my breath until it happens ... |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:25:47 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Jews were not the original settlers of Israel. |
They must have a claim which goes at least as far back as "the Palestinians" since they share a common ancestor (Abraham) ... I don't know of any identifiable living descendents of the "Canaanites" they conquered after the Exodus -- do you? |
I understand that one sub culture of the Canaanites became the Phoenicians, which were absorbed into Persia (but some people still claim Phoenician heritage). Persia is largely modern day Iran/Iraq. There are a lot of people in Iran particularly who consider themselves Persian. I don't think that we should add that claim into the equation.
The big difference is that the Canaanites/Phoenicians are not united by a persistent religion by which they can unite themselves across several millennia.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:34:57 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I am not sure what extra you are reading into this. |
Nothing extra, just what is there that you write yet are seemingly incapable of seeing:
caused by Israel
caused by Israel
caused by Israel
caused by Israel
caused by Israel
caused by Israel
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
the antagonism Israel causes was there initially by its very existence |
So by existing, Israel antagonizes the arab states that surround it and causes various problems.
So by existing, Israel antagonizes the arab states that surround it.
So by existing, Israel causes various problems.
Boil it down and you hit the 'problem' on the head. Hezbollah, Hamaas, Syria and the Iranians would all agree fervently with you and are quite forthright about what they consider the fix to be.
It's as simple as
1) "The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world"
2) The Iranian president then said: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism
3) "Israel must be wiped off the map."
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:38:12 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Israel hasn't done anything but respond to an attacks on its civilian or military population within its own borders. Since no one else seems interested in arresting the perps, the Israelis find it necessary to defend themselves |
I don't think it's that clear-cut. Everything there has always been tit-for-tat, every act of agression can be traced back to some kind of justification from either side;
A stone was thrown at an Israeli soldier, or a Palestinian house was bulldozed, or the security fence was built in the wrong place, or a weapons-smuggling tunnel was discovered, or Ariel Sharon went walkabout in the wrong temple... you get the idea.
Even the current situation was an escalation of a raid on an Israeli checkpoint (which I'm sure the Palestinians had some sort of 'justification' for) |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:39:09 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Goddam you finally get it -- after every "sustained period of peace" there is an attack -- on Israel. How goddam many rockets do they have to take -- and just WTF do you call a "proportionate" response? |
It is not a case of "suddenly" - I have understood your position. I have been trying to make a distinction between the state and the militants. If the state negotiates peace (always involving concessions on both sides), and militants disprupt it, should the response be an international effort to control the relevant area, or, the next day (before the world can mobilise) a series of attacks and incursions into the relevant state by Israel whcih has unilaterally decided that it is appropriate to act?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The US, the UK, Russia wouldn't accept one missle attack, much less a sustained series, all in violation of negotiated settlements. How many chances does Israel need to give these folks to break their word? |
The UK suffered 20 years of bombs, financed by the US, from the IRA and had to accept some degree of it in order to persist with the peace process and not allow it to be de-railed. I admit Israel has a bigger issue, and Ireland is currently stalled. But the starting point, demolishing another country's infrastructure, is so far beyond the mark of proportionality that its current invasion is highly unlikely to achieve its mark.
Originally posted by GeneralIE:
Why aren't you criticising the attackers -- those who broke the peace in the first place? If they hadn't attacked, there would be no "disproportionate response" -- there would be nothing but a continuation of the peaceful state we were enjoying. |
I do - but not to the same extent as people who are saying that Israel should go and "finish the job" and destroy every neighbouring state.
Originally posted by GeneralIE:
Israel hasn't done anything but respond to an attacks on its civilian or military population within its own borders. Since no one else seems interested in arresting the perps, the Israelis find it necessary to defend themselves -- I'm sure they'd be more than happy if the Russians or Iranians reined in Hezbollah and Hamas, but I wouldn't try holding my breath until it happens ... |
The Egyptians have consistently been Israel's best hope in this regard. The UN never gets a chance to take stock and impose sanctions, propose solution. Israel acts quickly and very very hard: IMO the escalation is problematic (as I think I have consistently said).
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:47:41 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Nothing extra, just what is there that you write yet are seemingly incapable of seeing:
caused by Israel |
Are you suggesting that I have said that the state of Israel somehow has sufficient consciousness to purposefully irritate its neighbours? It is a state: its existence irritates its neighbours. The irritation is caused by the state's existence. It is a fact. I don't propose to wipe it from the map, but to develop policies in the long term that will result in it being less irritating to its neighbours, thereby protecting its long term existence.
If I wanted to be biased, I would say "the Jews set out to provoke their neighbours to action". If you are reading that into my words, then you have got the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:47:52 PM · #158 |
GeneralE, this is the first thread I can recall where I am in total agreement with you. (so far)
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 21:59:13.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 09:56:59 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Are you suggesting that I have said that the state of Israel somehow has sufficient consciousness to purposefully irritate its neighbours? It is a state: its existence irritates its neighbours. |
No. It is a state, and its neighbors are irritated by its existence.
Israel has the capacity to decimate every nation in the region yet it does not do so despite the constant attacks since its birth as a state.
The arab nations try like hell to develop a destructive capacity to obliterate Israel, and then they get on TV and tell the world that, yes, that is exactly what they intend to do.
And people like you "try and see both sides".
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 10:08:31 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Are you suggesting that I have said that the state of Israel somehow has sufficient consciousness to purposefully irritate its neighbours? It is a state: its existence irritates its neighbours. |
No. It is a state, and its neighbors are irritated by its existence.
Israel has the capacity to decimate every nation in the region yet it does not do so despite the constant attacks since its birth as a state.
The arab nations try like hell to develop a destructive capacity to obliterate Israel, and then they get on TV and tell the world that, yes, that is exactly what they intend to do.
And people like you "try and see both sides". |
Fine - am giving up on this. You have won.
Israel's actions are proportionate - in fact - it should go further and kill millions more in its demonstration of strength. The "people" it is fighting are worth less than nothing, and every person in the area is guilty of not doing enough to stop the terrorists in their midst. They are judged by the administration of the world's superpower, and found wanting. By choosing to participate in elections and vote in parties that we do not necessarily agree with, they have declared their guilt. They will never learn, because they have caused the current crisis by their unilateral action and still they fight on. The land they claim as their grandfathers' shall be ruthlessly confiscated, their wasteful ways of life eradicated, their foul religion consigned to the dustbin. They have not stopped fighting despite the wrath that has been meted out to them, and so it is obvious: they need to be hit harder and more regularly, until they do understand. We need no further authority and they shall all suffer the consequence.
America and Israel have more than enough power between them to decimate the people who live in those places. By wiping out every nation other than Israel, they will win the respect of the rest of the world. Or at least, the rest of the world will fear them, and never dare to tread in their path again. The world will truly, finally, be a better place.
PS - anyone who disagrees with any of this is anti-semitic, anti-US, biased, racist, a sympathiser with terrorists, "daft".
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 22:11:42.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 10:46:54 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Even the current situation was an escalation of a raid on an Israeli checkpoint (which I'm sure the Palestinians had some sort of 'justification' for) |
People sneak across from Gaza into Israel, ambush and kill some soldiers and kidnap some others ... what exactly would be the "justification" for this action? |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 10:52:14 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Nothing extra, just what is there that you write yet are seemingly incapable of seeing:
caused by Israel |
Are you suggesting that I have said that the state of Israel somehow has sufficient consciousness to purposefully irritate its neighbours? It is a state: its existence irritates its neighbours. The irritation is caused by the state's existence. It is a fact. I don't propose to wipe it from the map, but to develop policies in the long term that will result in it being less irritating to its neighbours ... |
Your statements (I've highlighted where I mean) contradict themselves. If the "very existence" of something constitutes the "irritation" as you say, then no "policy" will act as a balm (pun intended) for that sore -- you need to either remove the irritant (the State of Israel) permanently or desensitize/cut the affected nerves.
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 22:56:42. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 10:53:36 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
GeneralE, this is the first thread I can recall where I am in total agreement with you. (so far) |
Logic has made some strange bedfellows here, indeed : ) |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 11:23:34 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Even the current situation was an escalation of a raid on an Israeli checkpoint (which I'm sure the Palestinians had some sort of 'justification' for) |
People sneak across from Gaza into Israel, ambush and kill some soldiers and kidnap some others ... what exactly would be the "justification" for this action? |
Just a question about language here - Israeli soldiers were 'kidnapped'
and members of the Palestinian govt were 'arrested'. Why the difference in language? |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:35:29 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Even the current situation was an escalation of a raid on an Israeli checkpoint (which I'm sure the Palestinians had some sort of 'justification' for) |
People sneak across from Gaza into Israel, ambush and kill some soldiers and kidnap some others ... what exactly would be the "justification" for this action? |
Just a question about language here - Israeli soldiers were 'kidnapped'
and members of the Palestinian govt were 'arrested'. Why the difference in language? |
I don't know about that, but I suppose because the soldiers were on their own territory minding their own business when they were abducted, and the Palestinian officials were considered suspects in sponsoring that illegal act? Aren't people suspected of committing crimes usually "arrested"? (Unless, of course, you're wanted by the CIA, in which case they will just kidnap and disappear you, guilty or not.) |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:43:15 AM · #166 |
Ok...like Kuwait 'invaded' Iraq. And Israel are simply 'entering' Lebanon.
America 'entered' Iraq, but they were simply 'liberating'. Who decides on the correct terminology?
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 01:10:11 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by amber:
Ok...like Kuwait 'invaded' Iraq. And Israel are simply 'entering' Lebanon.
America 'entered' Iraq, but they were simply 'liberating'. Who decides on the correct terminology? |
I don't know what you're talking about ... does anyone have any evidence whatsoever that those Israeli soldiers were doing anything to threaten any Palestinians? Lead of the story from the day after from the NY Times:
MILITANTS' RAID ON ISRAEL RAISES TENSION IN GAZA
June 26, 2006, Monday
By STEVEN ERLANGER (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 6, 1552 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1552 WORDS -In an ominous development, Israel threatened strong military action on Sunday after eight Palestinian militants in Gaza, including members of the governing faction Hamas, emerged from a secret tunnel dug 300 yards into Israel, killed two soldiers, wounded three and kidnapped another. ...
Now, which side would you say "provoked" this incident? I've highlighted the parts which I think are most important to making that determination. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 01:23:45 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
I don't know what you're talking about ... |
Fair enough, I'll shut up then.
Link
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 01:31:54. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:03:07 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
I don't know what you're talking about ... |
Fair enough, I'll shut up then.
Link |
OK, quite a list of stuff. I don't have a timeline to see what (if any) other "events" they may have omitted. However, if you accept the basic premise that the State of Israel has a right to exist (which even the UN, despite all its condemnations and resolutions, seems still in agreement with), then you have to start with the fact that the Arab states attacked the Jews, initially, in 1948, and have NEVER (except for Jordan and Egypt) declared an official end to that state of war.
It is/has been the official policy of several states that the State of Israel be destroyed. It is not the policy of the State of Israel that any other state be destroyed, merely that those states leave them alone for the first time in 62 years.
What would be yourresponse to the president of another country -- one supposedly developing nuclear weapons -- declaring openly that your country should be wiped off the map and all your people killed?
Who is going to protect Israel if it doesn't protect itself? Obviously you will not ... perhaps if some other countries had gotten involved after 1967 and 1973, when became obvious that the Arab states could not be trusted to maintain the peace ... but by then they had us firmly by the balls oil barrels, and we had to kowtow to the petrolords ...
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 03:04:01. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:37:42 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
they had us firmly by the balls oil barrels |
LOL! |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 04:41:47 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is/has been the official policy of several states that the State of Israel be destroyed. It is not the policy of the State of Israel that any other state be destroyed, merely that those states leave them alone for the first time in 62 years.
What would be yourresponse to the president of another country -- one supposedly developing nuclear weapons -- declaring openly that your country should be wiped off the map and all your people killed?
Who is going to protect Israel if it doesn't protect itself? Obviously you will not ... perhaps if some other countries had gotten involved after 1967 and 1973, when became obvious that the Arab states could not be trusted to maintain the peace ... but by then they had us firmly by the balls oil barrels, and we had to kowtow to the petrolords ... |
Having lost the argument, I now agree: Israel is entitled to the land it seized in the 1960s. In fact, the race's expulsion from the area a couple of millennia ago justifies them taking much more land from the arabs. It is not as if the arabs are using the land (I wonder why they even care?).
The fact that the continued occupation of the disputed territories is the single largest obstacle to long term peace is irrelevant: the arab terrorists will have to just deal with it (after all, Israel has a far better entitlement to the land, plus anything you can take by war is definitely yours - except for incursions into Israel, because that is set up by international treaty (the one treaty that is worth respecting)). Given a sufficient display of force, the arab terrorists will be forced to surrender, or die. Once we have killed and humiliated them, they (and their neighbours) will no longer have the will to oppose the might of righteous Israel. Israel's future will be long assured by occupying all of its neighbouring territories, or at least killing large numbers of their civilians so that they are too scared to contemplate resistance.
The best way to deal with Iran is to wipe it from the map now, before they have nuclear weapons. As GeneralIE says, what is a "proportionate" response to that threat? The gloves are off - there are no limits to what we can do in response, to protect ourselves. The fastest way would be to nuke Iran off the side of the Earth now in a pre-emptive strike (after all, no-one can say what is disproportionate). The stability that would be assured in Iran following an American and Israeli liberation of the state by nuclear bombardment is plenty justification in itself. No other nation would mind: if they do, as theSaj says, they have no say because the US counts for 50 votes, and it has the support of some people from India, so make that 51, against the rest of the world, 1. Russia is just posturing in its opposition to a US military solution (after all, this is a war on terror, and states that perpetrate it, and state sponsored terrorism: that justifies us attacking whoever we label "terrorist", and we can label lots of countries and political parties as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers (eg France) to make this job easier).
Military superiority is guaranteed to wipe out all of the bad arab terrorists that remain in the region. I am not sure why anyone still bothers talking to each other, or consults the UN - history has shown time and time again that the talking is just sympathising, and you can never avert a war, or deal with things peacefully. Otherwise, wars would never ever happen. We might as well invade now, because war is inevitable.
The US's policies are untainted, beyond reproach, because it has a better constitution than any other country and is a democracy. It should assert its morally pure military authority and superiority now, and be done with it.
Anyone who disagrees with me, is sympathising with the evil terrorists and deserves to share their fate.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 04:42:26.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 04:51:41 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
I don't know what you're talking about ... |
Fair enough, I'll shut up then.
Link |
OK, quite a list of stuff. I don't have a timeline to see what (if any) other "events" they may have omitted. However, if you accept the basic premise that the State of Israel has a right to exist (which even the UN, despite all its condemnations and resolutions, seems still in agreement with), then you have to start with the fact that the Arab states attacked the Jews, initially, in 1948, and have NEVER (except for Jordan and Egypt) declared an official end to that state of war.
It is/has been the official policy of several states that the State of Israel be destroyed. It is not the policy of the State of Israel that any other state be destroyed, merely that those states leave them alone for the first time in 62 years.
What would be yourresponse to the president of another country -- one supposedly developing nuclear weapons -- declaring openly that your country should be wiped off the map and all your people killed?
Who is going to protect Israel if it doesn't protect itself? Obviously you will not ... perhaps if some other countries had gotten involved after 1967 and 1973, when became obvious that the Arab states could not be trusted to maintain the peace ... but by then they had us firmly by the balls oil barrels, and we had to kowtow to the petrolords ... |
To be fair, you have no idea if I would protect Israel or not. I have always defended Israel, but after the family were killed on the beach, I began to question my unquestioning support. Which I am allowed to do btw.
I lived as a child through the Birmingham bombings. I lived all my life with the threat of terrorism and the prejudice caused by my family being Irish. Not once did the UK threaten to bomb Eire, because many IRA terrorists came from there, or got huge support there - especially Co. Cork. Not once did the UK threaten to cut off ties with the USA, let alone bomb it because of the large financial support the IRA received there.
Double standards.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 05:12:50 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Now, which side would you say "provoked" this incident? |
I would re-post part of amber's linked story for those too lazy to click.
Originally posted by Scoop - NZ:
"On June 8, the Israeli army assassinated the recently appointed Palestinian head of the security forces of the Interior Ministry, Jamal Abu Samhadana, and three others. On June 9, Israeli shells killed seven members of the same family picnicking on Beit Lahiya beach. Some 32 others were wounded, including 13 children.
On June 13, an Israeli plane fired a missile into a busy Gaza City street, killing 11 people, including two children and two medics. On June 20, the Israeli army killed three Palestinian children and injured 15 others in Gaza with a missile attack. On June 21, the Israelis killed a 35-year old pregnant woman, her brother, and injured 11 others, including 6 children. Then came the Israeli capture of two Palestinians, followed by the Palestinian capture of the Israeli soldier and the killing of the two other soldiers." |
The 18 month ceasefire that had been respected by Hamas was withdrawn only after the Israeli shelling on the beach.
But I will disregard all of this, because, as GeneralIE says, what is the "proportionate" response to having a soldier or two captured? That is the real cause of the dispute here - any previous military action by Israel was absolutely justified, I expect. Once again, the militants were first to breach the ceasefire forcing Israel into action because they were the first to act in an unjustified manner.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 05:19:48.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 05:47:45 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
And people like you "try and see both sides". |
Here is an article that is written very eloquently - the author (or "terrorist sympathiser" as we call people who "try and see both sides") is a Rabbi:
//www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00255.htm
People who cannot see beyond black & white need not bother reading it - it may be a bit complicated for you, as it considers the international politics of more than one nation and proposes a political "compromise" solution (i.e. something in between black and white - an apologist's answer, something that is redundant when the option of overwhelming force is available).
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 05:48:47.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 07:05:26 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
And people like you "try and see both sides". |
Here is an article that is written very eloquently - the author (or "terrorist sympathiser" as we call people who "try and see both sides") is a Rabbi:
//www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00255.htm
People who cannot see beyond black & white need not bother reading it - it may be a bit complicated for you, as it considers the international politics of more than one nation and proposes a political "compromise" solution (i.e. something in between black and white - an apologist's answer, something that is redundant when the option of overwhelming force is available). |
Thank you for this link. For those who cannot be bothered to read it, may I pick out these paragraphs as something everyone posting here should read:
Who are Israel's friends and the friends of the Jewish people? Those who support this path toward peace and reconciliation. Who are its enemies? Those who encourage it to persist in the fantasy that it can "win" militarily or politically. Just as the objective enemies of America in the 1960s were those who egged it on to persist in the Vietnam war, and those who were its objective friends were those of its citizens who actively opposed that war, so similarly today the ! friends of the Jewish people are those who are doing everything possible to restrain it from cheerleadng for Israel's militarist adventures and refusal to treat the Palestinians as equally entitled to freedom and self-determination as the Jewish people.
Who are Palestine's friends? Those who encourage a path of non-violence and abandoning the fantasy that armed struggle combined with political isolation of Israel will lead to a good outcome for Palestinians. Who are its enemies? Those who preach ideas like "one state solution" or global economic boycott without offering the Jewish people a secure state in Palestine-paths that will never produce anything positive but continued resistance by Israel and world Jewry.
|
|
