In short: Three days ago and shortly after the end of a 6 month long truce between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza strip, Israel launched a "shock and awe" campaign on Hamas facilities in the strip. The NYT reports some 350 deaths so far, most of which are members of Hamas. Shit is going down.
In long: So there's this guy Samuel P. Huntington who wrote this book called the "Clash of Civilizations." He argues that now that the cold war is over, the major conflicts of the world will no longer be over ideology, but civilizations. Incidentally, he died today, probably out of despair that he was so damn right. There's no conflict in the world that better exemplifies the clash of civilizations than the never ending struggle between Israel and Palestine. The story of the conflict is the same story you'd expect in any instance of a foreign people being introduced suddenly and overwhelmingly somewhere and building a nation state out of thin air. You essentially have two civilizations with very different values and histories who just don't like each other much facing off against one another. The outcome is never pretty.
Mark my words, this is a conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Arab world. Why else is there such disproportionately strong interest in this one, obscure corner of the world? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while deadly, is far from the worst in the world. Yet, in three days, the number of articles I've seen published about the Gaza attacks easily outnumber the sum of those published about the conflict in the Eastern Congo, a war that rivals heavyweights like the second world war in bloodshed. We have no economic interest there, and if anything, our support of Israel has only hindered our rational geopolitical interest in the region. The only reason we care so much is because we see Israelis as one of us, a part of the family, a member of the West whose security is more valuable than 350, or 200,000 -- about the number displaced in the 2006 war against Lebanon -- even a million Palestinians.
There's a psychological study I read a while back that really demonstrates the power your alignment of civilization has on how we make value judgments. Basically, what these guys did was show two groups of people -- one Israeli, the other Palestinian -- the same news footage about Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides came to glaringly opposite conclusions: the Israelis thought the footage criticized their efforts too harshly, while the Palestinians thought it was too supportive. The point being, there is hardly ever an objective right or wrong when it comes to this or any other geopolitical conflict. Quantitatively, the cost of the latest Israeli attack easily outweighs the half-dozen or so Israelis that have been killed between Christmas day and now. But can you really quantify the cost of living in constant fear of never ending rocket attacks? Can we blame the Israelis for foaming at the mouth from anger that a Palestinian whose personal and political anguish is, to the Israeli, distant and obscure?
Which is not to say we shouldn't try to do something about it. Being a moral relativist doesn't make me a heartless fuck. But the solution isn't to throw up your arms like a raving lunatic and bitch about Israelis or Hamas and condemn one or the other. In fact, an effective solution requires that we step outside the framework of our civilization and think creatively about solutions. In my mind, we have to consider things in the long term. Past attempts at resolving the conflict have only left behind a patchwork of broken promises, UN security council resolutions, and bitter feelings that have, if anything, hindered progress. I personally think negotiations would be much more successful if Israel had more of an incentive to achieve peace, like for example, if we stopped feeding them $50 billion in aid every year.
I don't know. This isn't my area of expertise. I was just gonna make a short post about recent events, but then I got all philosophical. Damn you Samuel P. Huntington. Of all the days in the world to die, you rotten old egghead.
Anyway, for those interested, a summary of what's going on:
So, why's this happening now? Well, the casus belli in Israel's case are the rocket attacks coming from Hamas' side of the border ever since the cease fire ended. In reality, both sides are being fueled by political considerations:
1.) President Abbas, leader of the secular, palestinian, Fatah party, wants to extend his term to five years so they would happen at the same time as Parliamentary elections. Hamas, Fatah's rival and the guys who currently control the Gaza strip, don't want this to happen. Hamas thinks it can make Abbas, who wants to negotiate with Israel, look bad by baiting Israel into an attack on the strip.
2.) Elections are coming up in Israel and the governing coalition is trailing the hard-line Likud party and their candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu in the polls. Ehud Barak of Labour and Tzipi Livni of Kadima both want to appear strong on security.
What's the ideal outcome? Depends on how you look at it, I guess. The Israelis would like it if they entirely drove Hamas out of Gaza, an unlikely scenario unless they occupied the strip, which they're wanton to do. Hamas wants to come out like Hezbollah did after the 06 war, as a regional hero. But Israel is much better prepared this time around, well, at least that's what analysts say. Either way, a cease fire will be negotiated whose terms will largely be dictated by how this conflict goes. Hamas stands to win more porous borders into Gaza and Israel might force Hamas to recognize Israel, but, well, that's not going to happen.
What's the worst that can happen? Israel will lose its fucking mind and start nuking everybody in the middle east and their mother. Seriously though, the worst possible outcome is if Israel plays the war like it played the war in Lebanon. Hamas will come out looking like the resilient warrior. It will have significantly more leverage over Fatah come election time, eliminating any chance for negotiation in the short term. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will almost certainly win the election, bringing with him a much more hard line stance against Palestinian. If he does moderate his stance, as past prime ministers have, certain things the Palestinians can't do without, like a shared capital in Jerusalem, are off the table. Well, it won't be pretty.
I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
I can't recommend any books on the subject, but the council on foreign relations website is just an amazing resource for many subjects in international relations. also, check out these articles:
On December 30 2008 19:54 koziol wrote: its funny how those Jews live in the sea of Arabas who hates them.. seriously they should just go to other place and live in peace~
Yeah, moving a country in the 21st century is the easiest thing ever.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
edit: fakesteve is awesome
I asked a question. A question cannot be defined as right or wrong in the sense of what you said. Statements can be true or false. Not questions.
I stated that your location could have affected your views on Israel. Because this statement concerns yourself, I don't think you can label this as true or false. A 3rd party is needed.
Maybe you should take a closer look at my post before you start talking about the supposed accuracy of it.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
edit: fakesteve is awesome
I asked a question. A question cannot be defined as right or wrong in the sense of what you said. Statements can be true or false. Not questions.
I stated that your location could have affected your views on Israel. Because this statement concerns yourself, I don't think you can label this as true or false. A 3rd party is needed.
Maybe you should take a closer look at my post before you start talking about the supposed accuracy of it.
Your post came off with a very derogatory and condescending tone... I got the impression you weren't asking a question, but making a statement. If that is not the case, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language and this is a misunderstanding.
I hate these kind of threads, I really honestly do, there is nothing but a flame war and whole shitstorm of bashing one side or the other.
On December 30 2008 19:54 koziol wrote: its funny how those Jews live in the sea of Arabas who hates them.. seriously they should just go to other place and live in peace~
You should learn to understand the situation better instead of coming out and saying something like that.
My views of this situation are very one-sided and very pro-Israel.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
edit: fakesteve is awesome
I asked a question. A question cannot be defined as right or wrong in the sense of what you said. Statements can be true or false. Not questions.
I stated that your location could have affected your views on Israel. Because this statement concerns yourself, I don't think you can label this as true or false. A 3rd party is needed.
Maybe you should take a closer look at my post before you start talking about the supposed accuracy of it.
Your post came off with a very derogatory and condescending tone... I got the impression you weren't asking a question, but making a statement. If that is not the case, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language and this is a misunderstanding.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
edit: fakesteve is awesome
I asked a question. A question cannot be defined as right or wrong in the sense of what you said. Statements can be true or false. Not questions.
I stated that your location could have affected your views on Israel. Because this statement concerns yourself, I don't think you can label this as true or false. A 3rd party is needed.
Maybe you should take a closer look at my post before you start talking about the supposed accuracy of it.
Your post came off with a very derogatory and condescending tone... I got the impression you weren't asking a question, but making a statement. If that is not the case, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language and this is a misunderstanding.
On December 30 2008 21:48 Sk0 wrote: "The NYT reports some 350 deaths so far, most of which are members of Hamas.", this part is the best in ur comment...
israel will regret what it's doing to muslims, I hate israel and all their allies, they will regret all!
Samuel P. Huntington's book has been criticized over and over in professional circles (historians etc), his theory is not at all credible. The distinction between a 'western civilization' as a whole and an 'arab civilization' as a whole, for instance, is too simplistic. Conflicts are very complex and multiple factors play a role, you can't simply reduce them to something as simple as a clash of civilizations. I see you (OP) gave a more elaborate and complex account of what is going on, so there is no need for this widely unaccepted theory.
The things are pretty simple. There is no clash of civilizations, religions or anything. Just a bunch of people were put in a place, on which other people lived for thousands of years. Violence is inevitable.
1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred. 2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion) 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto. 4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology. 5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction. 6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is. But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
well you could argue religion is an ideology and so the middle eastern vonflict is about ideology i cant be fucked though tension in the middle east is nothing new , must have heard 1000s of reports about it on the news over the years
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred. 2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion) 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto. 4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology. 5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction. 6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is. But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
On December 30 2008 21:48 Sk0 wrote: "The NYT reports some 350 deaths so far, most of which are members of Hamas.", this part is the best in ur comment...
israel will regret what it's doing to muslims, I hate israel and all their allies, they will regret all!
It's a rather well done dismantling of Samuel P. Huntington's thesis, you should watch it.
Sigh...
After it finished i was still waiting for that man to get off the bias train and begin actually making backed statements relative the thesis and situation.
That is not the dismantling of his thesis that is just the result of a biased viewpoint. I do disagree to select things is Samuel P. Huntington's thesis, however i do not agree with any of the 'claims' made by Professor Edward.
Do not just listen to what he says. PAY ATTENTION to it. it's awfully hollow.
On December 30 2008 19:53 Loanshark wrote: Wait, so Israel counts as the West?
Oh right you're from Afghanistan LOL that might explain it.
yes, israel is widely considered to be a part of western civilization. for example, 70% of its exports go to either Western Europe or the US.
and just to be a snarky asshole since i passed on my first opportunity with blackstar, maybe you shouldn't say dumb things unless you're sure you're right
edit: fakesteve is awesome
I asked a question. A question cannot be defined as right or wrong in the sense of what you said. Statements can be true or false. Not questions.
I stated that your location could have affected your views on Israel. Because this statement concerns yourself, I don't think you can label this as true or false. A 3rd party is needed.
Maybe you should take a closer look at my post before you start talking about the supposed accuracy of it.
Your post came off with a very derogatory and condescending tone... I got the impression you weren't asking a question, but making a statement. If that is not the case, then I'm guessing English isn't your first language and this is a misunderstanding.
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes
. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction.
6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is.
And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
How many people have been killed by rocket fire into Israel? I am having trouble finding a good link right now, but I know I have read that in the past 8 years the number is somewhere around 20. In just the past few days the Gaza death toll is over 350, not including injuries. The NYTimes is reporting that about 60 of which have been civilians(number is from the UN). The same lopsided comparison came be made with how many people have had to flee there homes. Since 1967, literally thousands of homes have been destroyed. Home demolition is essentially Israeli policy.
My point is not to justify either sides actions, but to point out the extreme lopsided nature of the conflict. That said, to point to this information as evidence of Israel as the victim not very compelling.
The idea that Israel is a fraction of the size it was, is just false. Israel expands its territory through land settlements. Plus, there territory expanded in the 1967 war. Just look at a map of Israel from 1948 to today. If you are talking about pre-1948 territory, that is a different discussion.
If you have personal bias towards Israel that is understandable, but I think your connections to Israel could be better used giving us inside information that is not readily available to us through the news media.
On December 30 2008 22:06 Piy wrote: It's just the inevitable result of the forced immigration after WW2. It's really nothing to do with the clash of civilisations.
Israel have treated the Palestinians as though they were third class citizens for too long now...
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred. 2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion) 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto. 4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology. 5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction. 6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is. But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
Thousands of settlers were ripped from homes which should never have been there in the first place. Even the Israeli government admits a lot of the settlements are/were illegal hence their removal. I can understand why you're so biased but you have to realise that you don't have to be so gung-ho just because you're an Israeli. There are plenty in Israel on the left who are in favor of negotiation with Palestinians and have much more reasonable views. There are also plenty of reasonable Palestinians who only want peace and to be able to visit other parts of their country without having to wait at checkpoints for hours everyday and be bullied by Israeli soldiers. You shouldn't generalise about and demonize all the Palestinians.
Yet, in three days, the number of articles I've seen published about the Gaza attacks easily outnumber the sum of those published about the conflict in the Eastern Congo, a war that rivals heavyweights like the second world war in bloodshed. We have no economic interest there, and if anything, our support of Israel has only hindered our rational geopolitical interest in the region. The only reason we care so much is because we see Israelis as one of us, a part of the family, a member of the West whose security is more valuable than 350, or 200,000
Our unflinching support for Israel did not really start until the early 70's during the war of attrition between Israel and Egypt. Russia was trying to gain influence in the middle east by supplying Egypt with large amounts of military supplies, so the US used Israel as a means of counteracting Russian influence. It really did not have anything to do with some cultural connection, so the argument of a clash of civilizations overly simplifies the situation and is not accurate in this case.
First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred. 2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion) 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto. 4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology. 5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction. 6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is. But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes
. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction.
6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is.
And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
How many people have been killed by rocket fire into Israel? I am having trouble finding a good link right now, but I know I have read that in the past 8 years the number is somewhere around 20. In just the past few days the Gaza death toll is over 350, not including injuries. The NYTimes is reporting that about 60 of which have been civilians(number is from the UN). The same lopsided comparison came be made with how many people have had to flee there homes. Since 1967, literally thousands of homes have been destroyed. Home demolition is essentially Israeli policy.
My point is not to justify either sides actions, but to point out the extreme lopsided nature of the conflict. That said, to point to this information as evidence of Israel as the victim not very compelling.
The idea that Israel is a fraction of the size it was, is just false. Israel expands its territory through land settlements. Plus, there territory expanded in the 1967 war. Just look at a map of Israel from 1948 to today. If you are talking about pre-1948 territory, that is a different discussion.
If you have personal bias towards Israel that is understandable, but I think your connections to Israel could be better used giving us inside information that is not readily available to us through the news media.
Dont talk about six-day war, it is full of failure for arabic countries, the casualities was like 800 soliders for Israel, and 22000 soldiers and 400 aircraft? Israel just won all battles here and surely their territory will be expanded.
On December 30 2008 21:48 Sk0 wrote: "The NYT reports some 350 deaths so far, most of which are members of Hamas.", this part is the best in ur comment...
israel will regret what it's doing to muslims, I hate israel and all their allies, they will regret all!
Also Israel is 10x more military capable than Hamas, if anything this is just like when Russia invaded Georgia. But you don't see American media decrying Israel's bullying. No, they are "defending themselves" by invading another country. See the irony?
But Russia when it invades another country is evil and bullying. See the difference?
I dont side with either side, Hamas are scum who hide behind civilians to stir international outcry and Israel is a bully for bombing the shit out of civilians.
It's sad that people still fight over ancients books and supposedly holy lands. Fuck them both.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
Sure, the body counts may not be exactly the same, but Israel has interpreted Hamas as a threat that would justify preemptively striking. Whether this justification is appropriate or not is another matter. However, it is impossible to make this body count comparison because both countries do not know the potential results of the conflict and how the other side will respond. As a result, both sides assume the worst and attack with a greater force.
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes
. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction.
6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is.
And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
How many people have been killed by rocket fire into Israel? I am having trouble finding a good link right now, but I know I have read that in the past 8 years the number is somewhere around 20. In just the past few days the Gaza death toll is over 350, not including injuries. The NYTimes is reporting that about 60 of which have been civilians(number is from the UN). The same lopsided comparison came be made with how many people have had to flee there homes. Since 1967, literally thousands of homes have been destroyed. Home demolition is essentially Israeli policy.
My point is not to justify either sides actions, but to point out the extreme lopsided nature of the conflict. That said, to point to this information as evidence of Israel as the victim not very compelling.
The idea that Israel is a fraction of the size it was, is just false. Israel expands its territory through land settlements. Plus, there territory expanded in the 1967 war. Just look at a map of Israel from 1948 to today. If you are talking about pre-1948 territory, that is a different discussion.
If you have personal bias towards Israel that is understandable, but I think your connections to Israel could be better used giving us inside information that is not readily available to us through the news media.
Dont talk about six-day war, it is full of failure for arabic countries, the casualities was like 800 soliders for Israel, and 22000 soldiers and 400 aircraft? Israel just won all battles here and surely their territory will be expanded.
Your country Iran is sponsering and training the murderous Hamas and Hizbollah. It is not a "neutral" side in the conflict - it is responsible for the bombing of Israel. You can say what your country stands for (though I would be ashamed of Ahmadinijad if I were you) but don't paint it as if you represent some sort of global justice, that's ridiculous. Iran is sponsoring 2 huge terror regimes which are responsible for horrific crimes (to their own population as well). The people in Gaza live in a ruthless and violent dictatorship sponsored by your country Iran, you shouldn't be proud of that as well, but hey in a sense your country is also sort of a dictatorship so you probably don't see much problem with the Hamas throwing their opposition from high buildings and shooting their brothers in the knees for opposing their rule.
The Hamas is attacking Israeli citizens and soldiers for years, it says that Israel should be completely destroyed and refuses to even acknowledge Israel's existence. Israel has every right to completely destroy that murderous regime. The sad thing is we didn't do it years ago when they were much smaller, that would have minimized the casualties on both sides.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
Sure, the body counts may not be exactly the same, but Israel has interpreted Hamas as a threat that would justify preemptively striking. Whether this justification is appropriate or not is another matter. However, it is impossible to make this body count comparison because both countries do not know the potential results of the conflict and how the other side will respond. As a result, both sides assume the worst and attack with a greater force.
In the current political situation in Israel there is absolutely no way that Israel would have attacked Hamas if it wouldn't constantly fire rockets at Israel (even during the so called cease fire). Their attacks haven't been preemptive (they were aimed at civillians not the army) those attacks are what caused this recent operation.
I used to be pro-palestinian and dislike Israel for their brutality. Then I spent some time in muslim-controlled countries for work, the last one being Sudan.
Now I'm a random muslim hater and find myself rooting for Israel.
Pretty sad but I can't help it. I think a lot of westerners side with Israel for this reason. Life in muslim-controlled countries is just so fucking different, and, let's say it, looks so fucking terrible for anyone used to western's, that you feel compelled to fight against it, while Judaism doesn't feel as threatening.
Your country Iran is sponsering and training the murderous Hamas and Hizbollah. It is not a "neutral" side in the conflict - it is responsible for the bombing of Israel. You can say what your country stands for (though I would be ashamed of Ahmadinijad if I were you) but don't paint it as if you represent some sort of global justice, that's ridiculous. Iran is sponsoring 2 huge terror regimes which are responsible for horrific crimes (to their own population as well). The people in Gaza live in a ruthless and violent dictatorship sponsored by your country Iran, you shouldn't be proud of that as well, but hey in a sense your country is also sort of a dictatorship so you probably don't see much problem with the Hamas throwing their opposition from high buildings and shooting their brothers in the knees for opposing their rule.
The Hamas is attacking Israeli citizens and soldiers for years, it says that Israel should be completely destroyed and refuses to even acknowledge Israel's existence. Israel has every right to completely destroy that murderous regime. The sad thing is we didn't do it years ago when they were much smaller, that would have minimized the casualties on both sides.
You're making out that just because Xeris is from Iran he's not allowed to criticize Israel in anyway and that he is complicit with Ahmadinijad's regime. You don't know all his political views, it's ridiculous to character-assassinate him just because he is Iranian.
Your country Iran is sponsering and training the murderous Hamas and Hizbollah. It is not a "neutral" side in the conflict - it is responsible for the bombing of Israel. You can say what your country stands for (though I would be ashamed of Ahmadinijad if I were you) but don't paint it as if you represent some sort of global justice, that's ridiculous. Iran is sponsoring 2 huge terror regimes which are responsible for horrific crimes (to their own population as well). The people in Gaza live in a ruthless and violent dictatorship sponsored by your country Iran, you shouldn't be proud of that as well, but hey in a sense your country is also sort of a dictatorship so you probably don't see much problem with the Hamas throwing their opposition from high buildings and shooting their brothers in the knees for opposing their rule.
The Hamas is attacking Israeli citizens and soldiers for years, it says that Israel should be completely destroyed and refuses to even acknowledge Israel's existence. Israel has every right to completely destroy that murderous regime. The sad thing is we didn't do it years ago when they were much smaller, that would have minimized the casualties on both sides.
I'm not proud of Ahmadinejad because he's a pretty poor President. And I didn't say that Iran is some sort of "global justice" - I said that no other country really is going to have the balls to call out Israel for what it's doing.
In this scenario, the gravity of Israel's attacks are unjustified. Both sides have been bombing and harassing each other for YEARS, why does Israel all of a sudden invade Gaza? They are just as guilty as Hamas of bombing and other stuff.
On December 31 2008 02:39 Rev0lution wrote: Also Israel is 10x more military capable than Hamas, if anything this is just like when Russia invaded Georgia. But you don't see American media decrying Israel's bullying. No, they are "defending themselves" by invading another country. See the irony?
But Russia when it invades another country is evil and bullying. See the difference?
I dont side with either side, Hamas are scum who hide behind civilians to stir international outcry and Israel is a bully for bombing the shit out of civilians.
It's sad that people still fight over ancients books and supposedly holy lands. Fuck them both.
those attacks are what caused this recent operation.
Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them. Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact.
Your country Iran is sponsering and training the murderous Hamas and Hizbollah. It is not a "neutral" side in the conflict - it is responsible for the bombing of Israel. You can say what your country stands for (though I would be ashamed of Ahmadinijad if I were you) but don't paint it as if you represent some sort of global justice, that's ridiculous. Iran is sponsoring 2 huge terror regimes which are responsible for horrific crimes (to their own population as well). The people in Gaza live in a ruthless and violent dictatorship sponsored by your country Iran, you shouldn't be proud of that as well, but hey in a sense your country is also sort of a dictatorship so you probably don't see much problem with the Hamas throwing their opposition from high buildings and shooting their brothers in the knees for opposing their rule.
The Hamas is attacking Israeli citizens and soldiers for years, it says that Israel should be completely destroyed and refuses to even acknowledge Israel's existence. Israel has every right to completely destroy that murderous regime. The sad thing is we didn't do it years ago when they were much smaller, that would have minimized the casualties on both sides.
I'm not proud of Ahmadinejad because he's a pretty poor President. And I didn't say that Iran is some sort of "global justice" - I said that no other country really is going to have the balls to call out Israel for what it's doing.
In this scenario, the gravity of Israel's attacks are unjustified. Both sides have been bombing and harassing each other for YEARS, why does Israel all of a sudden invade Gaza? They are just as guilty as Hamas of bombing and other stuff.
In one thing you are correct it's hard to find a logical explenation why Israel is attacking just now and not years ago as it should have done. It is because our leaders are betraying us and are moving Israel toward it's destruction even now it seems this operation isn't really meant to destroy the Hamas but to win them the election..
On a different note tell me what would Iran do if a group of people started bombing its civillians and army, firing tens of thousands of rockets on its cities for an extended period of time. I'll tell you what they would do they would kill each one of them and the rest would go to jail for a very long time.
Nobody has a right to fire rockets on Israeli cities. Organizations who decides that this is their policy should be completely destroyed.
Your country Iran is sponsering and training the murderous Hamas and Hizbollah. It is not a "neutral" side in the conflict - it is responsible for the bombing of Israel. You can say what your country stands for (though I would be ashamed of Ahmadinijad if I were you) but don't paint it as if you represent some sort of global justice, that's ridiculous. Iran is sponsoring 2 huge terror regimes which are responsible for horrific crimes (to their own population as well). The people in Gaza live in a ruthless and violent dictatorship sponsored by your country Iran, you shouldn't be proud of that as well, but hey in a sense your country is also sort of a dictatorship so you probably don't see much problem with the Hamas throwing their opposition from high buildings and shooting their brothers in the knees for opposing their rule.
The Hamas is attacking Israeli citizens and soldiers for years, it says that Israel should be completely destroyed and refuses to even acknowledge Israel's existence. Israel has every right to completely destroy that murderous regime. The sad thing is we didn't do it years ago when they were much smaller, that would have minimized the casualties on both sides.
I'm not proud of Ahmadinejad because he's a pretty poor President. And I didn't say that Iran is some sort of "global justice" - I said that no other country really is going to have the balls to call out Israel for what it's doing.
In this scenario, the gravity of Israel's attacks are unjustified. Both sides have been bombing and harassing each other for YEARS, why does Israel all of a sudden invade Gaza? They are just as guilty as Hamas of bombing and other stuff.
In one thing you are correct it's hard to find a logical explenation why Israel is attacking just now and not years ago as it should have done. It is because our leaders are betraying us and are moving Israel toward it's destruction even now it seems this operation isn't really meant to destroy the Hamas but to win them the election..
On a different note tell me what would Iran do if a group of people started bombing its civillians and army, firing tens of thousands of rockets on its cities for an extended period of time. I'll tell you what they would do they would kill each one of them and the rest would go to jail for a very long time.
Nobody has a right to fire rockets on Israeli cities. Organizations who decides that this is their policy should be completely destroyed.
Iran would retaliate. The difference is ... Iran is not bombing anybody. Israel has bombed Gaza before - Gaza bombs Israel. They have been going back and forth for MANY YEARS. This is why Israel's sudden aggression is really unjustified. They either should have attacked years ago when they were first bombed, or should just cancel the violence. Israel is just as guilty as Hamas in their relations, because neither of them has moved towards peace. But in this specific case, Israel is in the wrong I believe.
those attacks are what caused this recent operation.
Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them. Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact.
TeCh, I am not saying Israel didn't ignore it's population in the south for very long. Our politicians left them for 8 years defensless under constant terror attacks.
Israel is run nowadays by such corrupt cowards that if Israel wasn't pushed to do something by constant rocket attacks we would have unfortunately stayed passive and allowed Gaza to become stronger (which I am sure they'll continue to do after this operation is over).
As for your question, yes they have. And we didn't yet do enough. In Nebules, Beit Lehem, Kalkylia etc there are many palestines yet they don't go around firing rockets at us. Why is that? We are much more in control in there (though far from enough) and they cannot smuggle weapons as freely as they can in Gaza (through egypy). We should do the same thing in Gaza.
Unfortunately the language that works in our area is that of fear and violence.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
This is exactly what I think too. It's such a joke that Isreal gets attacked by home-made pipe bombs filled with scrap metal and retaliate with air strikes.
It is because our leaders are betraying us and are moving Israel toward it's destruction
Can you elaborate on that?
Yes.
Before Oslo "Peace" agreement the casualties in Israel from Palestinian aggression where very minor. They threw rocks, they stabbed from time to time but overall it took very little army presence, there were NO checkpoints and many of the Palestines worked in Israel (many worked in Jewish settlments btw).
Oslo gave the PLO the status of an autonomy, it provided them with huge amounts of Israeli weapons which were irnoically used to fire on us, the casualties grew. It gave them the organizational and financial abillities to create very large terrorist attacks. Directly after Oslo the Palestinians started exploding in buses all over Israel killing hundreds and the checkpoints where made to defend against that.
Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Rabin etc. gave Arafat the status of a legitimate leader even though he was directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Israel and openly called for the taking over of Tel Aviv, Haifa and of course Jerusalem using force.
In 2005 while Israel was under missile attacks, instead of focusing our efforts in stopping that, our government spent all its resources (and 2 years of training the army and the police just towards that) in destroying Gush Katif and throwing the Jews from there (btw without giving them an alternative for their destroyed houses and work places), as the palestinian rocket attacks continued and there was no agreement. They also gave the Hamas the area between Gaza and Egypt allowing them to freely transfer huge amounts of weapons into Gaza thus harming Israel security even more. The crazy rationale for the disengagment was that if they'll shoot even one rocket after we left Gush Katif we'll respond straight away and destroy the threat. needless to say the next morning the rockets continued and the day after as well for another 3 years our leaders didn't do anything substantial in response to protect South Israel from the attacks on it.
Olmert, Zipi Livni, Barack and all those are proposing give the Golan Heights to the Syrians putting the north in grave danger, evacuating Judea and Samarea thus putting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem under direct missile threat as well. In short bringing about the destruction of Israel.
To write a really specific account of the treason of the leaders in Israel would take a lot of time but this are some of the highlights.
On December 30 2008 22:01 ManBearPig wrote: Samuel P. Huntington's book has been criticized over and over in professional circles (historians etc), his theory is not at all credible. The distinction between a 'western civilization' as a whole and an 'arab civilization' as a whole, for instance, is too simplistic. Conflicts are very complex and multiple factors play a role, you can't simply reduce them to something as simple as a clash of civilizations. I see you (OP) gave a more elaborate and complex account of what is going on, so there is no need for this widely unaccepted theory.
aigh
maybe i should've just left out the clash of civilizations part. as i've said before, i realize it's a huge oversimplification. in fact, i wrote a 12 page paper way back when debunking it. i mostly brought it up because it provides some appropriate context and because the guy just died yesterday, and I didn't feel like marginalizing his work just then.
i haven't gotten to watch the video, maybe after i get out of bed and take a shower.
I'd like for people to understand that one of the reasons I brought in the civilizations thing is because I think it's a valuable approach to understanding how our cultural bias leads to a skewed interpretation of events. I was trying to say that unless we step out of this cultural bias and treat the israeli-palestinian conflict like any other world conflict, THEN we can make progress towards peace. I am very neutral on the conflict (like I am on most things) but my view is that the main reason we're not getting anywhere is because Israel has the backing of Western civilization, and has much less incentive to negotiate. The same kind of power imbalance, for example, is one of the reasons why sending a "special envoy" to deal with the Indian Pakistani conflict is a bad idea -- it'll only bolster the Pakistanis and make them think they can get away with more because it has US backing. My position isn't a stance on the morality of Israel's actions: I don't blame their leaders for reacting rationally. There are NO LEADERS in the world that will stand by while their citizens are under fire. If the Palestinians and Jews traded places, the SAME WOULD HAPPEN.
p.s. mods, this thread is gonna get nasty, but I'm hoping you won't close it because a.) it took me an hour to write b.) i think the diversity of points of view is fascinating c.) because you can just ban assholes like blackstar instead
Locke., essentially you think Israel has not been aggressive enough and that has left Israel vulnerable? What do you think would be enough? What do think should be the balance between being aggressive against Hamas, while not collectively punishing the entire population? (these are honest questions)
More concisely, I think it's stupid when people spend so much effort figuring out who to blame. That's like trying to find someone in particular to blame for the economic crisis. The only thing to blame is the invisible hand. Ok, and maybe Alan Greenspan, but that's not the point. Both sides are responding rationally to perceived threats. The sooner we can move past retribution and into substantial issues like settlements, water rights, borders, etc, the sooner we can build peace for BOTH sides.
those attacks are what caused this recent operation.
Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them.
It's called a contingency plan. You need to have plans ready in case your opponent does something, because if you wait until he attacks, you will not respond quickly enough. Everyone does this; it's not proof of evil intent:
On November 19, following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan was brought for Barak's final approval. Last Thursday, on December 18, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the defense minister met at IDF headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation.
However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire.
So:
- it was planned 6 months ago, just in case - after the November attacks, it was approved, but delayed to see if Hamas would continue a ceasefire - Hamas started attacking again, so the plan was put into motion
Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
Apples and oranges. Hamas is firing rockets at civilians, so by your eye-for-an-eye logic, Israel should go kill 20 palestinian civilians. But Israel is a civilized country so they are going after Hamas military, instead of civilians.
If you're from Iran, you should know that war isn't about proportionality -- it wasn't so long ago that you were at war with Iraq. You try to wipe out the other side's military, period. You don't tell your generals, "you can't kill any more of them than they kill of us."
those attacks are what caused this recent operation.
Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them.
It's called a contingency plan. You need to have plans ready in case your opponent does something, because if you wait until he attacks, you will not respond quickly enough. Everyone does this; it's not proof of evil intent:
On November 19, following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan was brought for Barak's final approval. Last Thursday, on December 18, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the defense minister met at IDF headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation.
However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire.
So:
- it was planned 6 months ago, just in case - after the November attacks, it was approved, but delayed to see if Hamas would continue a ceasefire - Hamas started attacking again, so the plan was put into motion
Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact.
I understand this, that was my point. Both sides have contingency plans and the situations is ongoing, so the recent rocket attacks into southern Israel were not the cause of the recent operations. My point was not to show evil intent, but rather to show that you can't say that event "x" was the caused of event "y". There are larger issues, and actions in from sides are done in the context of a longer history.
Your graph is misleading. It shows terrorist acts and crimes. Read through the incidents and you will see a hole lot of crimes. A woman was stabbed in her home by a palestinian, a man was shot on the street, etc... Those are not necessarily events directly related to the conflict. Your graph also does not include any Palestinian deaths as a result of IDF actions. It also starts in 2001, the start of the 2nd Palestinian Intifada, which started when Sharon visited the Temple Mount. This was essentially the peak of violence in relatively recent years, so to say that IDF actions minimized violence, but then start with it's peak is not exactly sincere.
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
Apples and oranges. Hamas is firing rockets at civilians, so by your eye-for-an-eye logic, Israel should go kill 20 palestinian civilians. But Israel is a civilized country so they are going after Hamas military, instead of civilians.
If you're from Iran, you should know that war isn't about proportionality -- it wasn't so long ago that you were at war with Iraq. You try to wipe out the other side's military, period. You don't tell your generals, "you can't kill any more of them than they kill of us."
And Israel hasn't also been firing missiles at people in Gaza? Reportedly there are over 60 civilian deaths so far at the hands of Israeli forces. My logic isn't "eye for an eye" ... it is about proportionality. You don't respond to a few deaths by invading someone. Coupled with that and the fact that military action requires approval by the UN Security council, even if it is "self defense". Arguably, Israel is acting illegally and is claiming self defense as a front to take out a regime it doesn't like.
I'm well aware of the Iran-Iraq war - my grandparents home was bombed during the war. The point is though, that Israel is acting very disproportionally to what was done to them, not to mention that both sides are equally guilty of bombing/harassing one another. The invasion of Gaza is unwarranted.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no? 2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force? 2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote: So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no? 2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force? 2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent....
For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary.
BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW."
Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
Palestine and Israel killing each other will amount to nothing. The way they're fighting now, the conflict will just continue, people will continue to suffer, and life there will suck.
One way to end it is to have a definite winner on one side. Who will it be? To me, they're both in the wrong, so I wouldn't care atm. If one side is to be totally destroyed though, what result will increase the general welfare of the world? I don't know enough to say...
I guess since there are many people from both sides who aren't extremists or just want to kill the other side and want to negotiate, would it be best, then, to just eliminate all of those who do want to destroy their opponents? That would lead to negotiations - but will that even work? The fighting stems from their ideological differences - who gets Jerusalem. There doesn't seem to be a solution that would be satisfactory to both sides as long as their religion remains the impediment. The only way it could truly work out is if one side, or both, changes their beliefs.
Fuck, shit can't be done. But the way it's going right now, suffering will just continue. I think the right thing to do in the situation would be something that would ensure that future generations would not have such conflicts. Even if ending the conflict means completely wiping out Israel, if it ends the stalemate and allows for a better life for future generations, it should be considered. Looking at the long term, this would be better for the general welfare of the world even if it does mean death for many at the present.
I don't get what the hell you're saying. You want them to sit idle then? A government that isn't going to put a missile up the ass of the scumbags who kill its countrymen isn't doing its job of protecting its inhabitants.
Of course they aren't going to invade Israel—they'll just win the war of attrition by blowing up civilians. That sure doesn't merit any kind of response!
And this thing doesn't end until they blow each other up, or until both become secular nations. But then they'll still probably bitch.
On December 31 2008 04:19 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Locke., essentially you think Israel has not been aggressive enough and that has left Israel vulnerable? What do you think would be enough? What do think should be the balance between being aggressive against Hamas, while not collectively punishing the entire population? (these are honest questions)
Essentially yes, though it's not only that, our leaders have constantly done things that made the Palestinians become much stronger and much more dangerous to Israel. Our tax money directly funded a lot of the huge terror infrastructures we are now facing.
Around a year ago there was a poll in Gaza which showed that over 70% of Palestinians in Gaza want to leave Gaza and live in a different country. So many want to leave that the Hamas made a law forbidding people to leave using its brute force.
A small positive step would be to let anyone who wants to leave to just go (a right people should have in every place in the world). The Egyptians and all the other 57 Arab countries say they are their brothers, help them find a better place and escape the horrible Hamas regime along with Israel's inevitable attacks. IMO Israel should also give financial aid to people in Gaza who wants to leave.
Don't forget the Hamas rose to power in a democratic election. The majority of the population supported it and now after 3 years of totalitarian brain washing I am sure even more of the population fully supports them. A real attack to destroy Hamas will cause harm to many civilians no doubt about that. The main point to remember is that this situation is not symmetrical, if Israel manages to return to a situation similar to how things were before Oslo there will be very little violence in our area. On the other hand the stronger the Hamas becomes and the stronger the Palestinian army (it's called police but it's an army) becomes the more violence and bloodshed will follow in the future.
On December 31 2008 06:42 Hawk wrote: And this thing doesn't end until they blow each other up, or until both become secular nations. But then they'll still probably bitch.
I agree with this. Both becoming secular nations would be the best thing that could happen imo, but that's never gonna happen
About blowing each other up - yeah, it won't end until this happens. One side has to have a definite winner for it to end, since the root of the problem can't be changed. The thing is, is it better for this to happen as soon as possible? Or later? Or just keep the fighting going?
Looking in the long run, having one side destroy the other as soon as possible would potentially yield the most beneficial results. If it's gonna happen anyway, having it happen sooner will prevent future suffering and deaths.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
There are tons of nutjobs on both sides of the conflict. It's very plain, even from just reading some of the biased posts in this thread.
The problem is, I don't really see that there is a permanent, feasible solution to this problem in the near future, unless the Israelis and the Palestinians can get over their hatred for one another. Of course, that's not going to happen for a long time, so my advice is to get used to all this fighting.
The problem with compromises is that it leaves both sides unsatisfied, and therefore won't hold.
On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote: So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no? 2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force? 2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent....
For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary.
BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW."
Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
I just explained that proportionality is irrelevant and you responded saying that what Israel is doing is not proportional. uhh....of course not. There is no reason why it should be.
Also, Israel is not doing a preemptive strike. They are trying to stop ongoing aggressions that Hamas started and has continued to do.
Proportionality is completely irrelevant. Accomplishing the needed change is what matters. Israel has to decide:
1. Whether or not to use for (which they already decided) 2. How much force is needed to stop the rockets.
Proportionality has nothing to do with anything in this situation.
On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote: So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no? 2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force? 2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent....
For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary.
BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW."
Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
"really prove intent"??? did you ever hear a Hamas speaker in your life? each and every one of them says they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed using brute force. Honestly please try to keep the level of discussion in here. "they're building up a military and weapons" Yes they are building a big army and are gathering a lot of weapons. When you say your main (and only) goal is the destruction of Israel and you are gathering huge amount of weapons it means something.
btw they are currently bombing the southern half of Israel to remind you, perhaps the USA shouldn't have attacked Japan, they only bombed pearl harbor they didn't invade the USA right?
And another btw your phrase "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW" while phrased ignorantly is basically correct and any other country would have done exactly that when faced with tens of thousands of rockets on its civilians.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote: 1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred. 2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion) 3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto. 4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology. 5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction. 6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is. But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
This.
On December 31 2008 01:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: How many people have been killed by rocket fire into Israel? I am having trouble finding a good link right now, but I know I have read that in the past 8 years the number is somewhere around 20. In just the past few days the Gaza death toll is over 350, not including injuries.
Dude. There's been peace treaties and Hamas breaks them. "Well the rockets have only killed 20 people so far!" Are you kidding?
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
Unless you see Israeli settlements as an act of aggression.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
That's the biggest and most retarded generalization I've ever heard. You're generalizing small subgroups (the ultra fundamentalist terrorists) of the entire organization as representing everyone. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
That's the biggest and most retarded generalization I've ever heard. You're generalizing small subgroups (the ultra fundamentalist terrorists) of the entire organization as representing everyone. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums.
Hamas isn't a "subgroup" it was elected by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza. What I was saying about their education system and maps is true and I am talking about official Palestinian policy not just in Gaza. They don't hide these things you just need to look.
You didn't say one informative thing in this post. Go ahead show us that Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel, that their maps does include Israel. You can't show that because it's false. So just keep saying that's a "retarded generalization" or that it's "ignorant", you say it enough times it's bound to be effective.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
It's the intent that are behind the rockets. It's a technically lethal weapon with the intent of killing Israel citizens. Granted, it would look much worse if the rockets were gigantic v2-sized rockets, but they are still attacking Israel (although, perhaps not in the most damaging of matters), and thus Israel took it as breaking the peace treaty, and responded accordingly.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
I agree with you they are crazy, that doesn't make them less dangerous, it makes them more so. they fired tens of thousands of rockets at us they can't destroy us yet but they sure are doing their best.
As for your president Ahmadinejad he did say that Israel should be wiped off the map and he is making nuclear weapons as fast as he can - your point being?? if you don't see anything alarming in that your logic isn't working properly.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
Congratulations on looking like the biggest retard ever, what Xeris said isnt stupid, you are stupid GTFO
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Perhaps the only reason Iran has not invaded Israel, is because Israel is strong. Locke said that if Israel laid down its arms, it would cease to exist. The fact that Israel is not being invaded is not proof that its enemies are moderate or that they wouldn't destroy Israel, but that having a strong military IS a good deterrent.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
The difference is that there was a peace agreement. It expired, but Israel did not immediately start attacking. Hamas is the one who starting firing missles. Israel bombs Hamas, but almost always it is because they are currently under attack.
Every nation in the world has the right to fight back when it is under attack. Hamas used to just be a terrorist organization, but now it is a political entity which has decided to continue acting like a terrorist organization.
I say that whoever starts the war has more blame because without their actions, there would be peace.
If Israel was not bombing Hamas right now, Hamas would still be attacking Israel, but if Hamas had never attacked Israel, there would still be peace.
Once you recognize Israel's right to sovereignty, their right to defend themselves from aggression follows. The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
Then for the next couple thousand years, Jews were under the dominion of various foreign empires, but retained their cultural identity.
During this time there was a great dispersion of Jews. I've heard anti-semitism explained to me this way by a foreigner I went to school with, "It's not hate, it's resentment. They adhere to their own identity and rebut assimilation. A Jew lives in Germany his whole life, raises a family there and his children, and how do they hail? As Jews, not Germans. They require a distinction." Any group of people so displaced yet so tightly bound together (in this case, by a religion, but any cultural glue suffices) would suffer the same resentments. And the intellectual excellence Jews have historically been known for makes resentment seem especially plausible in their unwitting gentile hosts.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
It looks like both parties really don't want peace. How much motivation was there to implement the road map? only some from palestinian side and little to none from israel...
On December 31 2008 09:15 Savio wrote: Perhaps the only reason Iran has not invaded Israel, is because Israel is strong. Locke said that if Israel laid down its arms, it would cease to exist. The fact that Israel is not being invaded is not proof that its enemies are moderate or that they wouldn't destroy Israel, but that having a strong military IS a good deterrent.
It's funny to see arguments like this in this thread, especially when you consider Iran is doing the exact same thing by obtaining (or at least allowing the possibility of obtaining) nuclear weapons - something the majority of the world bashes them for. And let's not all forget the fact that Israel actually has nukes of their own, and has for years. Now, I'm of the position that nuclear deterrents are insanity and terrible for the state of the world, but can you really blame countries like Iran who have seen that countries with nukes do not get fucked with all too much, while ones without get the Iraq treatment? It's common sense, and it's survival.
Anyhow, to the thread in general:
On December 30 2008 21:06 rushz0rz wrote: Clash of the Religions.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Once you recognize Israel's right to sovereignty, their right to defend themselves from aggression follows. The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
Then for the next couple thousand years, Jews were under the dominion of various foreign empires, but retained their cultural identity.
During this time there was a great dispersion of Jews. I've heard anti-semitism explained to me this way by a foreigner I went to school with, "It's not hate, it's resentment. They adhere to their own identity and rebut assimilation. A Jew lives in Germany his whole life, raises a family there and his children, and how do they hail? As Jews, not Germans. They require a distinction." Any group of people so displaced yet so tightly bound together (in this case, by a religion, but any cultural glue suffices) would suffer the same resentments. And the intellectual excellence Jews have historically been known for makes resentment seem especially plausible in their unwitting gentile hosts.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
A Jewish state was placed in the one place that would cause all that violence though. Say what you will about the strife in the Middle East but from my recollection, the violence only stirred up when the US and England decided to put them there.
Also, for whomever says the US is losing a ton of money on the conflict, you're a bit off your mark there. US and England makes a ton of money off the arms sale in that conflict. You can make the argument that selling weapons is letting Israel protect itself but I'll propose to you this question. Since when has giving someone a gun saved peace? If anything, it's in their best interest that there isn't peace in the Middle East (despite their condemnation of it outwards). A lot of other major powers aren't exactly clean on their dealings there either, China, Russia all makes a ton of money by selling their arsenal as well. It's a bit sickening how the major world powers pull all this stunt about world peace while basically funding things so Third World Nations or (developing nations like Israel) get screwed around with. Have you guys ever seen places like Iraq or Jerusalem pre World War II? They were beautiful places with some of the richest culture at the time. The Muslim region was one of the most TOLERANT of all places in terms of religion. If you studied history at all, one of the safest havens for Jewish refugees pre World War II was the Ottomon Empire and other Arabic nations. Now look at places like Baghdad, it's a practical wasteland.
If you guys really care about the peace in the Middle East, stop pointing fingers at the Jews or the Arabs there, point fingers at your own countries for causing it in the first place and making no real efforts to stop it.
Here is a little exemple, imagine that the israeli was putted by the english instead of palestine, on a part of Finland, & used the same gay ways on harrassing & humiliating finland citizens (like they was & are doing to palestine citizens), I let u imagine what other vikings would do to them.
A Jewish state was placed in the one place that would cause all that violence though. Say what you will about the strife in the Middle East but from my recollection, the violence only stirred up when the US and England decided to put them there.
Obviously your knowledge of the Middle East is very minute. Violence was there before the English Language was even devised.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Once you recognize Israel's right to sovereignty, their right to defend themselves from aggression follows. The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
Then for the next couple thousand years, Jews were under the dominion of various foreign empires, but retained their cultural identity.
During this time there was a great dispersion of Jews. I've heard anti-semitism explained to me this way by a foreigner I went to school with, "It's not hate, it's resentment. They adhere to their own identity and rebut assimilation. A Jew lives in Germany his whole life, raises a family there and his children, and how do they hail? As Jews, not Germans. They require a distinction." Any group of people so displaced yet so tightly bound together (in this case, by a religion, but any cultural glue suffices) would suffer the same resentments. And the intellectual excellence Jews have historically been known for makes resentment seem especially plausible in their unwitting gentile hosts.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
No sensible solution to a problem involves that kind of favoritism. The thing is, just as we shouldn't treat any cultural group (we're agreeing on considering Jews a cultural group for this argument) negatively just due to their existence, we shouldn't treat them positively for the same reason. Did they deserve to live there more than the families who were at the time of the state of Israel's creation? If you think so, why? Neither party should be treated differently due to their ancestry - a factor which is beyond anyone's control.
The 'foreigner' you went to school with was accurately describing why anti-semitism exists, whether they knew it or not. Jews often defy patriotism (a positive trait if you ask me), which upsets people who think that where your 'alliance' lies is most important. Soon conspiracies spring up, as they tend to do whenever there are circles of people in a country who seem to tend toward solidarity rather than 'coming together' under the same flag.
Of course, even if you agree that the creation of the state was wrong, that doesn't come into play much as for the solution. The only viable solution is a 2-state scenario with emphasis on autonomy for both sides (something the US claims it's for, but constantly works against).
Is this whole conflict kind of Israel and the US's fault?
I was in the car with my dad to go see the doctor yesterday and this was on the radio. I asked him how did this whole conflict even start.
He said it all began in WWII when the US(or was it allies I can't recall) had to borrow money from the world bank, which at that time the head happened to be a Jew. The Jew guy then said that as a condition for the lending of money, Israel had to be given back to the Jews.
After the war, they drove the Palestinians out of their homeland when they've lived there for around 2000 years.
Am I right? Because this kind of makes sense to me and I never studied that kind of history.
I've never heard anything about the World Bank being involved, although it was another entity created following WWII (or for purposes related to the allies' victory at least) so I can see how there would be conspiracy theories based on it.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
Generally speaking you are probably right, but when the zionist began there migration to palestine they never really took into account the impact on the local population until there were already established resentments. What the zionist did in one sense was brilliant, but it was also to reactionary(mainly to Russian pogroms). Prior to the zionist migration, jews and arabs lived together in palestine without conflict. Resentment against the zionist jews began as there population grew and organization gave them a lot of influence, and it was obvious that there agenda did not take into account the local arab population. Unfortunetly I am not the greatest writer, but read A history of Israel and One Palestine, Complete for a good history on the developement Israel.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
Congratulations on looking like the biggest retard ever, what Xeris said isnt stupid, you are stupid GTFO
Fuck you, he said that you can't prove intent by the words of "some government officials", when the fucking government official in question happens to be the God damn President of Iran. You dumb shit.
1. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 26 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“after Hamas ended the ceasefire a week ago”
What ceasefire? 1500 rocket and mortar attacks into Israel from Gaza in 2008. The farce that the Hamas government are not responsible for the actions of Hamas militants, therefore are not breaking the ceasefire is exactly that - a farce. 2. The Vagus Kid (10) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 39 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
If Israel withdrew from the Palestinians land then they could have the moral high ground. Instead they insist on carrying out economic genocide and war on people trying to get back their land. It strikes me that the Israelies have a forgotton their history. If they remembered it they would perhaps have more empathy for the Palestinians.
[DPF: They did withdraw from the Palestinian land. And that land is now used to attack parts of Israel not claimed by Palestinians] 3. Put it away (143) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The only arab who wants to negotiate is one who’s run out of bullets. Everyone knows this, yet for the benefit of the bleeding heart lefties in the media, Israel has to go through this farce of pretending to believe that the terrorist party is serious about a ceasefire, and has to suffer a few thousand unprovoked rocket attacks before they act. They should just say fuck it, no ceasefire until all the terrorists are dead, all the weapons are seized, and all the borders are sealed so they can’t obtain any more. 4. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 14 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Vagus
What about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Arab countries surrounding Israel? How many Jews now live in any of them? Fact is that 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, so who stole who’s land here? 5. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 20 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
As for economic genocide, I note that Gaza also has a border with Egypt…how come Gaza isn’t free to trade with them? Must be those damn Elders of Zion conspiring again huh? 6. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 18 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Over 700,000 Jews were forceably evicted from Arab lands after the establishment of Israel. Many from places where they had lived continusouly for nearly two thousand years. Even now in Yemen, a local Jew (who looked more Yemeni than any Jew I have ever seen) was stabebd to death for refusing to convert to Islam. 7. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TJCO - You are right. Egyptian border police fired on Gazan Arabs trying to enter Egypt just yesterday. 8. Murray (2106) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I think its the vague kid who needsto do some work on his grasp of history.
Untill the palestinian charter stops having the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews as its first item then there is nothing to “negotiate”.
Meanwhile perhaps the vague one could name for us one other single country that would sit there and be bombarded by misiles at a greater rate than Britain did under V1 and V2 attacks and do nothing in response. Idiots continuing to use extreemist retoric like “economic genocide” has led to the situation that Iarael is screwed if they don’t defend themselves and screwed if they do. That they finally decided to be hung for the sheep as the lamb should come as no suprise to anyone.
Go Israel. 9. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 17 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Exactly TJCO. Gaza also borders on the Mediterranean Sea. What’s stopping them from using that border?
I don’t see why Gaza must rely on Israel for supplies. They want to be independent territory, so why must they rely on another country? Instead of spending all their time attacking Israel, why not concentrate on helping their own people and building their region?
Brian Smaller, you’re totally right. Tens of thousands of Jews were evicted from the Arab countries in which they lived when Israel declared independence. While those countries also told Arabs in Israel to leave, Israel asked them to stay, and that if they did, they’d be given citizenship and the exact same rights as every other Israeli. 10. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Also, I must say that Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any other Arab country. 11. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Exactly, Israel being the only democracy in the entire region has arab members of parliament and appointees to the Israeli Supreme Court…actually the fact that ALL its citizens have recourse to the courts at all is something missing in the surrounding countries… 12. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 16 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I don’t see why Gaza must rely on Israel for supplies. They want to be independent territory, so why must they rely on another country?
Their access to the rest of the world is very restricted by Israeli blockading and Israeli air space. Over the last six months, Israel has blockaded supplies in response to rocket attacks, and opened supply routes after periods of no rocket attacks. It’s a less violent form of retaliation than bombing, but I’m not sure what the stats are on loss of life due to lack of medical supplies. 13. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 14 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Israel has repeatedly in the past opened its hospitals to patients from Gaza and the West Bank. Again Ryan, Given Gaza’s border with Egypt and access to the coast, why does it require any economic input from Israel at all? 14. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Their access to the rest of the world is very restricted by Israeli blockading and Israeli air space.”
No it’s not. Their access to Israel has been restricted, not the rest of the world. They also have a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have also blocked. So it’s not just the Israelis blocking their supplies. And besides, they also border on the Mediterranean Sea, which Israel is not blocking. They’re free to get supplies from that route. 15. Murray (2106) Vote: Add rating 17 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
How the fuck do the IDF block other peoples borders? They don’t.
BTW the palestinian problem was created by the Arab states who refsed to take them, not by Israel that would accept them. 16. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
TJCO,
Ideally it wouldn’t have to. But the border with Egypt is controlled by both Egypt and Israel, as part of an agreement between Egypt and Israel in ‘82. It’s currently supposed to be controlled by a third-party EU police force, but they’ve pulled out after Hamas was elected, because Hamas is on their list of terrorist organisations.
It’s just been opened up by Egypt to let medical supplies through, in response to the recent bombings. 17. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
No it’s not. Their access to Israel has been restricted, not the rest of the world. They also have a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have also blocked. So it’s not just the Israelis blocking their supplies. And besides, they also border on the Mediterranean Sea, which Israel is not blocking. They’re free to get supplies from that route.
According to that report, Israel won’t rule out the possibility of interfering with a Gazan seaport, and so donors are holding back on building it or something.
But yes, you’re right, Egypt is part of the problem when it comes to trade with Gaza. 18. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Ryan Sproull, despite all that, Gaza still has a long stretch of its border on the Mediterranean Sea which they are free to use.
Israel and Egypt have no obligation to help Gaza. They have every right to close their borders to it. 19. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Israel and Egypt have no obligation to help Gaza. They have every right to close their borders to it.
They have the right to do so, yes, but the moral question of the effects on innocents remains. 20. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Particularly if they insist on electing Hamas to government whose Charter proscribes the destruction of Israel as its purpose. 21. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 13 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Lets not forget that Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank for the purpose of a Palestinian State, whereupon Yasser Arafat responded with suicide bombers and the resumption of the intifada… 22. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Particularly if they insist on electing Hamas to government whose Charter proscribes the destruction of Israel as its purpose.
Yeah, that’s a tricky one. It seems anti-democratic to attempt to influence future elections in ways you like, by imposing economic sanctions. But then, it’s one of the few ways to influence the behaviour of a government short of threatening military action. I guess the problem with a country with few borders, where none of its neighbours are cooperative, is that the actions of a few countries can prevent trade with every country. 23. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Lets not forget that Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank for the purpose of a Palestinian State, whereupon Yasser Arafat responded with suicide bombers and the resumption of the intifada…
I’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. 24. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 16 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Hamas or Fatah - who cares - they are all the same as far as I am concerned.
We keep hearing about gaza being a concentration camp, yet I have yet to see anyone starving. Perhaps the stupids Hamas militants shouldn’t have destroyed all those huge greenhouses the Israeli’s nicely left behind for them. Some stupid “peace” boat went into Gaza a few months back and Israelis wouldn’t let the dumb bitch running the show leave through their terrotory and she blogged about starving Gazans and such like. Trouble is she was photographed in a well stocked supermarket buying groceries which included Mars bars. Any news out of the ME that has AP, Reuters or any stringer with al- in his name should be regarded as propaganda and nothing more. 25. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
They have the right to do so, yes, but the moral question of the effects on innocents remains.
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets. 26. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 13 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Ryan - what moral obligation is there to people who rocket and mortar you every day for years on end and whom elected a government who have as a founding a principal your own death. You would hand your killer the knife. 27. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 15 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets.
That’s essentially collective punishment. It’s not “The Palestinians” firing rockets. It’s a minority of Palestinians firing rockets, and the response is to punish every Palestinian for those crimes. The people being punished are not the people committing the crimes. 28. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets.
That’s essentially collective punishment. It’s not “The Palestinians” firing rockets. It’s a minority of Palestinians firing rockets, and the response is to punish every Palestinian for those crimes. The people being punished are not the people committing the crimes.
It’s not about punishing anyone. It’s about stopping rockets being fired at innocent civilians in your own country! 29. Chuck Bird (343) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
There is only one way the problem in the Middle East will be solved and that is for the Moslems to recognise Israel’s right to exist. Arguments about whether the UN should have given Israel to the Jews are stupid and ill relevant.
Rightly or wrongly Israel exists. It has a very strong military force with nuclear weapons. Israel is not going to voluntarily go away. The argument about disproportionate force is ridiculous. Does the UN expect Israel to only kill one terrorist for every innocent civilian that gets murdered?
The UN should go do something useful in Zimbabwe and stop making stupid statements that only encourage terrorist. 30. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’ve yet to see any spontaneous demonstrations in Gaza protesting against the use of rockets… 31. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ryan - what moral obligation is there to people who rocket and mortar you every day for years on end and whom elected a government who have as a founding a principal your own death. You would hand your killer the knife.
It’s not quite every day for years on end, but again, the people firing those rockets aren’t a collective called Palestinians. They’re small groups of Palestinians. As for voting in Hamas rather than Fatah, not every Palestinian voted for Hamas, and we can’t know that those who did weren’t simply voting for the lesser of two evils. But seeing civilians as fair game because they elected the wrong government is a dodgy path to start down, and is in line with al-Qaeda’s justification for attacking American civilians.
I would not hand my killer the knife. But I wouldn’t withhold food and medicine from someone purely because they’re from the same country as my killer. 32. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It’s not about punishing anyone. It’s about stopping rockets being fired at innocent civilians in your own country!
Well, it’s working great. 33. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 12 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Iran’s jews condemn Israel. US jews silent. 34. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I would not hand my killer the knife. But I wouldn’t withhold food and medicine from someone purely because they’re from the same country as my killer.
But would you withhold food and medicine from someone, who could get them from other sources, if it stopped your killer getting a knife?
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens. 35. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Iran’s jews condemn Israel. US jews silent.
Jewish Americans not silent. That includes New York. Hell, there are 13 Palestinian solidarity organisations in Israel. 36. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game”
Yes Max, it does.
Israel’s siege of Gaza began on 5 November, the day after an Israeli attack inside the strip, no doubt designed finally to undermine the truce between Israel and Hamas established last June. Although both sides had violated the agreement before, this incursion was on a different scale. Hamas responded by firing rockets into Israel and the violence has not abated since then. Israel’s siege has two fundamental goals. One is to ensure that the Palestinians there are seen merely as a humanitarian problem, beggars who have no political identity and therefore can have no political claims. The second is to foist Gaza onto Egypt. That is why the Israelis tolerate the hundreds of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt around which an informal but increasingly regulated commercial sector has begun to form. The overwhelming majority of Gazans are impoverished and officially 49.1 per cent are unemployed. In fact the prospect of steady employment is rapidly disappearing for the majority of the population.
On 5 November the Israeli government sealed all the ways into and out of Gaza. Food, medicine, fuel, parts for water and sanitation systems, fertiliser, plastic sheeting, phones, paper, glue, shoes and even teacups are no longer getting through in sufficient quantities or at all. According to Oxfam only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza in November. This means that an average of 4.6 trucks per day entered the strip compared to an average of 123 in October this year and 564 in December 2005. The two main food providers in Gaza are the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the World Food Programme (WFP). UNRWA alone feeds approximately 750,000 people in Gaza, and requires 15 trucks of food daily to do so. Between 5 November and 30 November, only 23 trucks arrived, around 6 per cent of the total needed; during the week of 30 November it received 12 trucks, or 11 per cent of what was required. There were three days in November when UNRWA ran out of food, with the result that on each of these days 20,000 people were unable to receive their scheduled supply. According to John Ging, the director of UNRWA in Gaza, most of the people who get food aid are entirely dependent on it. On 18 December UNRWA suspended all food distribution for both emergency and regular programmes because of the blockade.
The WFP has had similar problems, sending only 35 trucks out of the 190 it had scheduled to cover Gazans’ needs until the start of February (six more were allowed in between 30 November and 6 December). Not only that: the WFP has to pay to store food that isn’t being sent to Gaza. This cost $215,000 in November alone. If the siege continues, the WFP will have to pay an extra $150,000 for storage in December, money that will be used not to support Palestinians but to benefit Israeli business.
The majority of commercial bakeries in Gaza – 30 out of 47 – have had to close because they have run out of cooking gas. People are using any fuel they can find to cook with. As the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has made clear, cooking-gas canisters are necessary for generating the warmth to incubate broiler chicks. Shortages of gas and animal feed have forced commercial producers to smother hundreds of thousands of chicks. By April, according to the FAO, there will be no poultry there at all: 70 per cent of Gazans rely on chicken as a major source of protein.
Banks, suffering from Israeli restrictions on the transfer of banknotes into the territory were forced to close on 4 December. A sign on the door of one read: ‘Due to the decision of the Palestinian Finance Authority, the bank will be closed today Thursday, 4.12.2008, because of the unavailability of cash money, and the bank will be reopened once the cash money is available.’
The World Bank has warned that Gaza’s banking system could collapse if these restrictions continue. All cash for work programmes has been stopped and on 19 November UNRWA suspended its cash assistance programme to the most needy. It also ceased production of textbooks because there is no paper, ink or glue in Gaza. This will affect 200,000 students returning to school in the new year. On 11 December, the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, sent $25 million following an appeal from the Palestinian prime minister, Salaam Fayad, the first infusion of its kind since October. It won’t even cover a month’s salary for Gaza’s 77,000 civil servants.
On 13 November production at Gaza’s only power station was suspended and the turbines shut down because it had run out of industrial diesel. This in turn caused the two turbine batteries to run down, and they failed to start up again when fuel was received some ten days later. About a hundred spare parts ordered for the turbines have been sitting in the port of Ashdod in Israel for the last eight months, waiting for the Israeli authorities to let them through customs. Now Israel has started to auction these parts because they have been in customs for more than 45 days. The proceeds are being held in Israeli accounts.
During the week of 30 November, 394,000 litres of industrial diesel were allowed in for the power plant: approximately 18 per cent of the weekly minimum that Israel is legally obliged to allow in. It was enough for one turbine to run for two days before the plant was shut down again. The Gaza Electricity Distribution Company said that most of the Gaza Strip will be without electricity for between four and 12 hours a day. At any given time during these outages, over 65,000 people have no electricity.
No other diesel fuel (for standby generators and transport) was delivered during that week, no petrol (which has been kept out since early November) or cooking gas. Gaza’s hospitals are apparently relying on diesel and gas smuggled from Egypt via the tunnels; these supplies are said to be administered and taxed by Hamas. Even so, two of Gaza’s hospitals have been out of cooking gas since the week of 23 November.
Adding to the problems caused by the siege are those created by the political divisions between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas Authority in Gaza. For example, Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), which is not controlled by Hamas, is supposed to receive funds from the World Bank via the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) in Ramallah to pay for fuel to run the pumps for Gaza’s sewage system. Since June, the PWA has refused to hand over those funds, perhaps because it feels that a functioning sewage system would benefit Hamas. I don’t know whether the World Bank has attempted to intervene, but meanwhile UNRWA is providing the fuel, although they have no budget for it. The CMWU has also asked Israel’s permission to import 200 tons of chlorine, but by the end of November it had received only 18 tons – enough for one week of chlorinated water. By mid-December Gaza City and the north of Gaza had access to water only six hours every three days.
According to the World Health Organisation, the political divisions between Gaza and the West Bank are also having a serious impact on drug stocks in Gaza. The West Bank Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for procuring and delivering most of the pharmaceuticals and medical disposables used in Gaza. But stocks are at dangerously low levels. Throughout November the MOH West Bank was turning shipments away because it had no warehouse space, yet it wasn’t sending supplies on to Gaza in adequate quantities. During the week of 30 November, one truck carrying drugs and medical supplies from the MOH in Ramallah entered Gaza, the first delivery since early September.
The breakdown of an entire society is happening in front of us, but there is little international response beyond UN warnings which are ignored. The European Union announced recently that it wanted to strengthen its relationship with Israel while the Israeli leadership openly calls for a large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip and continues its economic stranglehold over the territory with, it appears, the not-so-tacit support of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah – which has been co-operating with Israel on a number of measures. On 19 December Hamas officially ended its truce with Israel, which Israel said it wanted to renew, because of Israel’s failure to ease the blockade.
How can keeping food and medicine from the people of Gaza protect the people of Israel? How can the impoverishment and suffering of Gaza’s children – more than 50 per cent of the population – benefit anyone? International law as well as human decency demands their protection. If Gaza falls, the West Bank will be next.
37. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
But would you withhold food and medicine from someone, who could get them from other sources, if it stopped your killer getting a knife?
Yes, I would. But I think you can have economic sanctions on weaponry (EDIT: and luxuries) without preventing fuel, medicine and food getting through.
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens.
That’s the thing. To me, civilians are civilians. I would rather no one was killed, but I’d rather one civilian was killed than 50 civilians were killed, if I was forced to make such a horrible choice. 38. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Ryan - by the logic of your argument WWII would still be going on. Collective punishment is what happens when countries war with one another. Show me a war in the history of humankind where that was not the case?
Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people. Hell, they let 250 terrorists go the other day alone. They are all well fed and well looked after. Israeli soldiers taken prisoner generally get their balls cut off and end up dumped a few years later. 39. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 8 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
As far as limiting what gets into the country of your enemy - Germany tried it with unrestricted U Boat warfare in WWII. Napoleon and Britain tried it against each other in the Napoleonic Wars. It is a legitimate tactic when at war. 40. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Ryan - by the logic of your argument WWII would still be going on. Collective punishment is what happens when countries war with one another. Show me a war in the history of humankind where that was not the case?
I was responding to MaxPower saying that the blockades would stop when the rockets stopped. That doesn’t sound like war to me, but if you’re trying to convince me that something is a good idea, “It’s war!” is not the way to my heart.
Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people. Hell, they let 250 terrorists go the other day alone. They are all well fed and well looked after. Israeli soldiers taken prisoner generally get their balls cut off and end up dumped a few years later.
That doesn’t change my point - the blockades hurt people who aren’t committing the crimes used to justify the blockades. And “Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people” is a matter of opinion - an opinion that seems to fly in the face of things like continued bulldozing of farms and evicting people to make way for Israeli settlements. 41. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens.
That’s the thing. To me, civilians are civilians. I would rather no one was killed, but I’d rather one civilian was killed than 50 civilians were killed, if I was forced to make such a horrible choice.
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident. 42. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Meanwhile, in the US, Obama remains at “No comment” position, despite all prospects for ME peace disappearing down the gurgler…
Gee, talk about shutting down his previously available options, wonder who would possibli have a vested interest in doing that? 43. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
As far as limiting what gets into the country of your enemy - Germany tried it with unrestricted U Boat warfare in WWII.
I have to say, I’ve never heard “but the Nazis did it first” used as a justification. 44. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident.
When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident. 45. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ryan “I have to say, I’ve never heard “but the Nazis did it first” used as a justification.”
what a dick you are. The Germans also tried in in WWI and nearly succeeded. Blockade has been done in just about every major war for thousands of years. Napoleon and Britain tried it in the Napoleonic Wars on each other (the Continental System and the British Blockade). It is a legitimate tactic of war. 46. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 17 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
this story is propaganda that israel has produced,israel is stealing land killing inocint woman and children and bullshit post like this want you to believe they are the good guys heres the real story The stinking smell of a conspiracy, a disaster, a political plan is behind the Israeli “war” against the population of Gaza. The Israeli military “Operation Cast Lead” did not begin as a result of adduced rocket-spiegel“self defense” against Palestinian rockets, which appear to be made and shot for the most part in Israel itself or distributed by the employees of Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, the Israeli intelligence system, to collaborators within the Palestinian resistance. It also has nothing to do with the primitive, home made rockets of the Palestinian resistance, or because Hamas had ended the weak truce after six month of continuous Israeli blockade against one million and a half persons in the concentration camp of Gaza. And it also has nothing to do with Israel wanting to free the Israeli-French war criminal Gilad Shalit captured by Hamas.
Nobody showed the hundred tons of explosives which the Israel Air Force dropped on the police stations and civilian offices in Gaza, leading to the death of over 300 civilian and police, and the injury of over 1000 persons, hundreds of them in critical condition. The western media has manipulated the information so that everyone believes that the Israeli destruction and ethnic cleansing of a nation is some kind of “self defense”, that Israel is some kind of “victim”. The world is not so naïve to believe that Israeli intelligence Chief Yuval Diskin, 880f857Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be able to hide the purpose of their abject crimes against the population of Gaza and their will to massacre hundreds, or even thousands, in order to win the coming Israeli elections with scenes of bodies without heads, and legs without foots of the Palestinian victims in order to placate the blood-thirsty masses of Israel. 47. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Israel is not [trying to kill civilians].
Well they’re certainly making a hell of a lot of mistakes then Max, had a look at the list of recent targets they’ve hit?
As I said on the general thread, if Israel really wanted to eliminate the Qassams, they’d equip the Palistinian police to do it. 48. Fletch (231) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The whole protest thing is a farce. Do a quick search of Google on ‘protest’, ‘Israel’, and ‘Gaza’ and you’ll read about thousands of people in cities around the world (including Paris and Canada) coming out to protest Israel’s attack on Gaza. Where were these same people when Israel was getting shelled by 80 rockets a day? Who was protesting then?
No one. It bloody stinks.
People are afraid to criticize anything Muslim, but when it comes to Israel it’s open season. Did they expect Israel to just sit and do nothing? Just take the bombardment?
Hypocrites. 49. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident.
When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident.
True, but my point is that the militants in Gaza are trying to kill civilians. Israel is trying to avoid it. 50. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident.”
So you HAVE just handed your killer the knife. You know your enemy hides behind civillians. Therefore you don’t shoot in case you hit them. You might as well shoot yourself and save the enemy the bother. 51. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
what a dick you are. The Germans also tried in in WWI and nearly succeeded. Blockade has been done in just about every major war for thousands of years. Napoleon and Britain tried it in the Napoleonic Wars on each other (the Continental System and the British Blockade). It is a legitimate tactic of war.
That doesn’t make it a good thing. 52. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
True, but my point is that the militants in Gaza are trying to kill civilians. Israel is trying to avoid it.
Well, it would seem they’re both very shit at their jobs. 53. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
rEID “As I said on the general thread, if Israel really wanted to eliminate the Qassams, they’d equip the Palistinian police to do it.”
PLEASE tell me that you are not that naive. Israel supplied tens of thousands of weapons to the PA over the years. Look what it has got them. 54. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“That doesn’t make it a good thing”
How do you embed a quote?
War is not a good thing. I don’t know anyone, with the exception of a few mercenaries serving overseas, who does. But if you fight it you do it properly. If one side has point and kill zap guns and the other is armed with fruit then all the better for the first side. Disproportional response is what people whose favourite side is losing cry out. 55. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
How do you embed a quote?
*blockquote*TEXT*/blockquote*
But with triangle bracket things replacing the *. 56. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
War is not a good thing. I don’t know anyone, with the exception of a few mercenaries serving overseas, who does. But if you fight it you do it properly. If one side has point and kill zap guns and the other is armed with fruit then all the better for the first side. Disproportional response is what people whose favourite side is losing cry out.
Okay, if this is a war (and I’m not saying it is), what are the goals of the war? 57. fatnuts (6) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
How can Israel claim to be acting in self defense, or pursuing peace as long as it actively confiscates land outside its legitimate borders for the settlement of its own civilians?
This attack is a continuing smoke screen for the land grab; the annexation of Jerusalem and the prevention of a viable Palestinian state in the West bank.
If Israel was pursuing ‘peace’ then it would remove the illegal West bank settlements as it removed the same from Gaza, and the Sinai. 58. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The rocket attacks are crimes. Does someone have something up their sleeves that wipes out crime they’re not telling us about? 59. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
i guess israel has a friend at kiwiblog
* News * World news * Israel and the Palestinian territories
Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction Foreign minister briefs Rice, Miliband, and Solana
* Toni O’Loughlin, Jerusalem * guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 December 2008 15.45 GMT * Article history
Israel has mounted a public relations campaign to convince international hearts and minds that Hamas is to blame for the death and destruction they are seeing on their television screens.
Stung by the wave of international criticism earlier this year when Israel invaded Gaza to stop militants firing rockets, in an operation dwarfed by its current attack, Israel decided to go on the offensive.
“In the past our prime minister received phone calls from high-ranking officials and politicians. When he said, ‘Surely you understand about the rocket fire’, they said, ‘What are you talking about?’” foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.
So, while the military marshalled its forces, the foreign ministry honed its message and amassed its staff, ready for Saturday’s attack.
Israeli diplomats were recalled from holidays and ordered back to work and in the rocket-bombarded southern Israeli town of Sderot, on Gaza’s northern perimeter, it opened a multilingual media centre to brief foreign journalists.
Then when the time came, the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, reportedly picked up the phone, dialing Britain’s foreign secretary, David Miliband, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana along with the foreign ministers of Russia, China, France and Germany.
Yesterday she also briefed two buses of up to 80 international representatives and dignitaries in the Sderot media centre.
“We thought it was essential to show the context in which Israel’s decisions are being made and that there is a sequence of events,” Palmor said.
For Israel, the chain of events leading up to this attack begins not with its occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, which is the Palestinian view.
Instead it begins three years ago with its decision to withdraw its military barracks and civilian settlements from inside Gaza.
“We could start in 1948 [with the partitioning of historical Palestine to create Israel] but if we want to limit ourselves to the current situation, I would begin with the pull-out of 2005,” Palmor said.
Palestinian militants claimed the evacuation was a victory due to their rocket-launching campaign and continued firing rockets on to Israeli southern towns.
Having built a wall around Gaza before disengagement, Israel then imposed a progressively tighter blockade, by barring Gazan labourers from entering Israel in late 2005, then by banning Gazan commercial trade in 2006 and finally in mid-2007 by squeezing humanitarian aid.
Asked whether the campaign was working, Palmor said it was too early to tell.
Still, as the attack was beginning yesterday on , the message, whether due to Israel’s campaign or not, was being publicly repeated around the world.
Rice blamed Hamas “for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence” while the Palestinian Authorityís President, Mahmoud Abbas, said the attack could have been avoided.
“We have warned of this grave danger and said that we should remove all the pretexts used by Israel,” Abbas said yesterday as the attack on Gaza continued. 60. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about and from the Christian Science Monitor Domestic politics fuels Gaza conflict. 61. Adam (230) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The rocket attacks are crimes.
Oh really? I would call it an act of war. Seriously you’re too stupid for words Ryan. 62. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
{blockquote}The rocket attacks are crimes.{/blockquote}
Oh really? I would call it an act of war. Seriously you’re too stupid for words Ryan.
Use the less-than and greater-than signs for html tags.
Where would you draw the line between crimes and acts of war? 63. Adam (230) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Go play your silly little argument somewhere else. If you can tell the difference then there is no hope for you. 64. barry (270) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Frankly - I cant understand why Isreal doesnt just clear the place out (Gaza). Just destroy everything as far in as the rockets can go - and go further if bigger rockets are used.
There are many reasons why the Palestinians are not happy with the situation. The UN and the Allies fucked up after WW II - but thats not Israels fault. Its like the Scots (highland clearances), the Irish (British criminal rule), etc, etc. Theres no good livimg in the past. As it turns out the Scots and the Irish (and the Welsh) will get their independance back (already half done) without tryng to live in the past and fighting old wars. the Irish did this and they are way behing the Scots on the road to independance.
The Palestinians should be blaming the UN and the Allies, but living in the past committs them to ongoing second class status.
Further I cant understand why in all thes Arab countries there never seems to be a limit to the numbers of middle aged men who are on the streets protesting - ie: looking for trouble. They should be working or doing something to help their families grow out of the shit they are in. 65. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
It is very obvious from the posts that few here have any idea what the Palestine conflict is about. One thing is certain, you will not learn about it from the newspapers or television. I am the same age as the State of Israel and for most of my life supported it. That was until the conflict in Lebanon last year when a few alarm bells went off in my head. I now hold a different view and it is the result of reading thousands of pages of original documents inspired by the essay linked below. Anyone wishing to gain a greater understanding, and I sincerely hope that anyone who has the temerity to post on the subject would feel obliged to, I suggest reading Origins of conflict: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm It is not a long piece and is very readable. I then suggest that you double check all of the facts that the writer presents. 66. Harpoon (33) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
how many teachers, doctors, nurses, plumbers, grandparents, schoolchildren, mothers and fathers died in the Hamas rocket attacks? To the nearest ten would be sufficient. Just hazard a guess. 67. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Historical maps from 1945 with rough population estimates and the proposed borders of the UN’s 1947 partition plan. 68. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
how many teachers, doctors, nurses, plumbers, grandparents, schoolchildren, mothers and fathers died in the Hamas rocket attacks? To the nearest ten would be sufficient. Just hazard a guess.
Since 2001, 15 Israelis (wikipedia doesn’t have a reference for that particular number) have been killed by rocket attacks, and a further eight by mortar attacks. Just over 3000 rockets have been fired since 2001. 69. PhilBest (3938) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
There have been numerous cases around the world, of competing claims by different races or cultures, to the same piece of land. We have bits of land between Germany and France, between Serbia and Bosnia, between Russia and Poland, between India and Pakistan; to name but a few. In some cases, ancient hatreds seem to have been buried and peaceful coexistence achieved, irrespective of the issues of which nation possesses the disputed territory.
In other cases, it has been necessary for a compromise solution to be imposed by the international community through the UN. These compromise solutions involve a physical separation of the incompatible peoples, with the displacement of significant numbers of both. Obviously, the solution designed will attempt to be as fair as possible, and draw borders that require the minimum amount of displacement of peoples. This was the case with the UN-designed “1946 borders” of Israel and Jordan and a “Palestinian State”. However, this solution assumed a peaceful coexistence, and did not allow for defensibility of the borders of the new Jewish State; in fact one would even wonder if the Europeans involved had any intention of the new State surviving at all, when the facts on the ground at the time are considered. I mean, a State that over a significant amount of its length, is 15 miles wide, between the Mediterranean sea and its sworn enemies………get real?
OK, the Jewish State embarrassed its creators by daring to survive, and in the process, taking defensive positions beyond its original borders while reasonably awaiting end-of-conflict non-aggression agreements. Note that NO JEWS remained in “Palestinian” or Arabic areas, while several hundred thousand Arabs remained within the borders of Israel. This should tell us a lot about the moral status of the adversaries; but no, Israel’s detractors choose to focus solely on displaced Arabs, rather than displaced Jews and their legitimate fears in the event that they remained in Arab dominated areas.
The point that I find is crucial, when discussing these issues with New Zealanders, is that almost everyone has no concept of the size of the territories in dispute. This is not France and Germany; or India and Pakistan. We are talking about a State, Israel, that is about the size of the lower North Island of NZ from Wanganui to Wellington, only, at its narrowest point, no wider than the Kapiti Coast. We are talking about territories disputed by the “Palestinians”, that are about the size of Upper Hutt. Imagine the Kapiti Coast being populated by Jews, and the overlooking ranges being populated by “Palestinians”. Would you deny the Jews the right to hold onto at least the first range of hills overlooking their towns, in the absence of clear, sworn, and demonstrated peaceability on the part of the Arabs? What we are talking about here, is a tacit “Final Solution” that you can either endorse or reject; what you choose says a lot more about you than it does about Israel.
There are surrounding nations that are kin to the “Palestinian” Arabs; Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia; these nations are in total a hundred times the size of Israel, hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. Yet the possibility of the absorption of the displaced “Palestinians” by these nations never comes up; the focus is entirely on 18,000 square km Israel being demanded to relinquish 4,000 square km of strategic territory that virtually cuts it in half, to people who remain avowedly devoted to Israel’s destruction.
I have said this before and will keep saying it. If the “Palestinans”, and Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were all Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or anything except Islamic, the descendants of the displaced “Palestinians” would all long since have got themselves a life in the land to which they had been displaced and welcomed with open ams; in many cases merely a few kilometers from where they originally lived. Are there ANY territorial disputes anywhere in the world where Islam is involved, where this has happened? Cyprus? Bosnia? Kashmir? East Timor?
Look at India and Pakistan. How many Hindus in Pakistan? Nix. Nada. Nil. How many Muslims in India? Tens of millions. Which country still has trouble with the other side attacking it, demanding that their rights be acceded to? How many Hindu demands for a right to live in peace in Pakistan where their ancestors came from, backed up with terror attacks in Pakistan? Ever?
The international blindness to the existential threat that is Islam, in favour of an obsession with the so-called crimes of the tiny, imperilled Jewish state, can only be explained by reference to the biblical and the supernatural. It is not explicable on rational, humanist grounds. And the inability of people like Ryan Sproull to acknowledge this, merely strengthens the case against them. 70. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. in contrast, from the ceasefire Hamas announced in June, 2008 until Saturday, no Israelis had been killed by Hamas. 71. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. in contrast, from the ceasefire Hamas announced in June, 2008 until Saturday, no Israelis had been killed by Hamas.
That’s not really a contrast, since they’re vastly different timeframes. In the last decade, as compared to the last six months (which has been under a ceasefire). 72. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 12 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
spoff finally someone with a clue,tv and papers etc are propaganda tools designed to keep the public from knowing any truth about what is really going on i have been ridiculed by many here at kiwiblog for trying to shear info i have learned over the years,i think most of them are pollyannas with the agenda of keeping people away from doing there own research mainstream media hides most truth and puts its own spin on to influence there agenda,the gaza is only one of many israel has much to answer for 73. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
In 2001-2008 rockets killed about 15 Israelis and injured 433, 74. Owen McShane (496) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Churchill über alles and the scourge of revisionism” Two recent publications assert that the brutal British and the aggressive Americans are the true villains of WWII. JOnathan Ariel writes: “Buchanan argues that had the savage Winston Churchill not corralled a certain Austrian into an untenable corner, Der Fuehrer might not have, on September 1, 1939, dispatched 1,850,000 soldiers, 3,100 tanks, 10,000 artillery pieces and 2,085 airplanes to subjugate Poland. And in turn, have the Allies “unnecessarily” declare war, two days later. Elsewhere in the book, among other distortions, Buchanan opines that it was the Allies’ folly and not Hitler’s long standing desire of ridding Europe of Jews, which was responsible for the Holocaust. Tens of millions of Europeans died needlessly because the Allies fought a war they chose not to avoid, seems to be what Pat Buchanan is selling. And Roy Williams is buying. And to boot, he wants us to buy too. But at what price?
“The liberties we currently enjoy are the going rate, I suspect.
“In an equally twisted review by Williams, this time of the leftist Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, the case is promoted that the Allied bombing of German cities was tantamount to a war crime. Baker seemingly frog marches in lock step with one Jorg Friedrich, a most unattractive apologist for Nazi conduct during the war, who has railed for years against what he deems are Britain’s “war crimes”.
“Baker says that there was no need to carpet bomb German towns and to pulverise infrastructure. This was so “unnecessary”, he declares. Suggesting, I infer, that less destructive ways (such as negotiations) were available to say, the Royal Air Force, to stop the flow of fuel, storm troopers, collaborators and bullets, earmarked for the mobile Nazi death units called the Einsatzgruppen which pillaged and raped, before merrily shooting and gassing their way through Europe and Russia.”
What I find most frightening is that all but one of the seven comments so fare endorse the views of Buchanan and his soul mate. The Germans were innocents – it was all our fault. 75. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“What I find most frightening is that all but one of the seven comments so fare endorse the views of Buchanan and his soul mate. The Germans were innocents – it was all our fault.”
If you read that into people who voice opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians Owen, you’re an idiot. 76. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
1,062 Israelis and at least 4,876 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
8,341 Israelis and 33,034 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.
Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18,147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.
Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ 77. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Bullshit baffles brains for sure.
When the declared aim of Sovreign States in the area around Israel is to take the land, and push the Zionists into the sea to drown.
Then there is an intractable problem of resolving the issues in the Region.
When you look at the quality, and track record of the ‘Haters of Zion’ then you know who it easier to business with.
I’m a Dinner Jacket is a feudal fuckwit, and the Optician who rules Baathist Syria both hate each other.
Shia v’s Sunni.
The leading Muslims are becoming a real World problem. They have ambitions to build another World Emirate.
Why should we conform to their ideals? If they don’t like the West, then move out!
They also want to de-stabilise India and China and Russia etc.
They wave the Palestinain Cause as the catalyst, and yet seem more content killing anything that brings a smile to their faces.
Secularism? They don’t want to tolerate us. Why should we be scared as to not offend them and their feudal, mediaeval, and misogynist outlook.
Their mischievous leaders are dangerous.
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, however at the moment it sure looks like every Terrorist is in fact a Muslim. 78. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Owen.
I think the reviewer indulges in a little hyperbole. Buchanan’s thesis is not nearly so shocking as this piece makes out and much of it was shared by Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, A.J. P. Taylor and other prominent military historians. The central point of interest is the offer of peace made by Hitler after Dunkirk which was on very favourable terms. It is not heresy to suggest that Churchill should have taken it as it would have preserved Britain’s Empire/treasure and Germany did not even demand her former colonies back, neither were there any conditions for Britain to disarm. In essence, the theory is that Hitler’s main phobia was Bolshevism and he wanted Britain to remain the primary Naval power. In any case, by accepting, Churchill would have bought time to re-arm. There are many books that explore these possibilities, some from just after the War. The first casualty in War is Truth. It pays to avoid becoming wedded to any dogma that proceeds from it. Another reliable dictum is that there all the actors are rational. If you are told that Hitler, the Muslims, the Serbs ….whatever, are mad, most likely you are being fed propaganda. Insane people are not organized enough to command ten people let alone an army or a Nation. 79. Don the Kiwi (140) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
A lot of fog has been descending over some of the commenters here. Did the Hamas miltants in Gaza start firing rockets into Israel around six months ago, or not? Did Israel surrender/return the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians for a homeland, hopeful of peace?
Do the Hamas Palestinians have in their Declaration the destruction of Israel, or not?
Do the Muslim Palestinians - mainly of Gaza, but elsewhere also - have as their aim, to kill all Jews (Israelis)?
I suggest that it is time to cut through the fog and face facts. Israel is certainly not lily white, and has committed what I would call gross miscalculations in relation to their land occupation, but I cannot blame them for their response when it comes to the protection of their citizens, and in fact, their very survival. 80. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Right on cue here comes Bum Muscle with a dogma he is wedded to. “the declared aim of Sovreign States in the area around Israel is to take the land, and push the Zionists into the sea to drown.”
“At the time of the June 1967 war it was stridently asserted by Israel’s supporters that Egyptian President Gamal Nasser threatened to drive the Israelis into the sea. This claim, for which there was no evidence at all, was almost universally believed in the West and it had a powerful effect on public opinion in Britain and the United States at that time. In Britain one Member of Parliament even quoted it during a television program, provoking another Member of Parliament, Christopher Mayhew, to offer 5000 pounds to any of the millions of viewers who could produce evidence that Nasser had made such a statement. Mr. Mayhew repeated the offer later on television, and in the House of Commons and broadened it to include genocidal statements by other Arab leaders. As he explained in a letter to the Manchester Guardian:
“I made this 5000 pound offer with a quite serious intention. I wanted to help reassure Jewish people that, in spite of much Israeli propaganda to the contrary, responsible Arab leaders are not genocidal. Those who try to suggest otherwise are seriously mistaken and merely help to increase the fear and hatred in the Middle East which does so much to prevent a peaceful settlement.”
During the following four years Mr. Mayhew received a steady trickle of letters from eager claimants, each one producing some blood-curdling quotation from an Arab leader, usually culled straight from one pro-Israeli publication or another. Mr. Mayhew replied to each claimant, explaining that the quotation was mistranslated, wrongly attributed or invented, as the case might be, but always adding that if the claimant was not satisfied he could take him to court. Eventually, one claimant, a Mr. Warren Bergson, did take Mr. Mayhew to court. Bergson issued a writ during the October 1974 General Election for Parliament at a time when Mr. Mayhew was contesting the constituency of Bath. In February 1976 the case was heard. Significantly, Mr. Bergson was unable to offer evidence of Nasser’s alleged statement. Instead, he produced a genocidal threat alleged to have been made by the then Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, in 1948. When Mr. Mayhew produced the original statement in Arabic, however, the claimant was unable to deny that his English version was a flagrant and apparently deliberate mistranslation.” From: Facts & Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict by Clifford A. Wright http://www.answerway.com/expertans.php?category=369& expertname=abirl&catnam=Breaking+News
“The leading Muslims are becoming a real World problem. They have ambitions to build another World Emirate.”
I would be interested to see evidence of this. All I see is evidence of a certain cliche in America who openly promote a thing called the Project for the New American Century.
“If they don’t like the West, then move out!” I rather think they would like to see the West move out of such dominions as Iraq.
“They also want to de-stabilise India and China and Russia etc.”
Oh boy. Maybe one should back away quietly at this point. What the hell, one more.
“Not every Muslim is a terrorist, however at the moment it sure looks like every Terrorist is in fact a Muslim.”
Google King David Hotel, Patria, Rome Embassy bombing 1946, Lavon Affair, Irgun Terrorism, Deir Yassin, Shatila, Sabra. That should do for starters. 81. gatcollie (6) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Spoff, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. While the statistics may be correct (although, if I were you, I wouldn’t include the statistics on the UN, since I think the UN’s stance on Israel says far more about the United Nations than Israel - if you do not believe me look up the reports on the laughingly named Durban anti-racism conference), they miss the underlying problem. The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that when it intensifies it is generally (although not universally acknowledged) to be due to provocation from the Palestinians (who are being used as tools of extremists regimes who wish to hurt Israel and the West). Israel is certainly not innocent. The government has blood on its hands, and seems to have ceased to have any meaning except the protection of Jewish land. But think, what are they to do? The basis of the state is to protect its citizens. If there are rockets and terror attacks pouring over the border, what is a country to do? If it was North Korea sending hundreds of rockets over the South Korean border every week, would we still be asking who was right? If New Zealand was being bombed by rockets from Australia, what would be think of a government that stood back and did nothing to protect their citizens? 82. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Glutaemus Maximus what a pillock you are,a true pollyanna with no facts just bullshit,why dont you tell us all where your info is coming from (george bush) ??? these are the trolls i have been taking about,trying to baffle all with bullshit how about some facts with your dim witted propaganda the lies are starting to unravel and theres not a fucken thing you can do about it,and im loving it 83. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“I think the reviewer indulges in a little hyperbole. Buchanan’s thesis is not nearly so shocking as this piece makes out and much of it was shared by Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, A.J. P. Taylor and other prominent military historians. The central point of interest is the offer of peace made by Hitler after Dunkirk which was on very favourable terms. It is not heresy to suggest that Churchill should have taken it as it would have preserved Britain’s Empire/treasure and Germany did not even demand her former colonies back, neither were there any conditions for Britain to disarm. In essence, the theory is that Hitler’s main phobia was Bolshevism and he wanted Britain to remain the primary Naval power. In any case, by accepting, Churchill would have bought time to re-arm. There are many books that explore these possibilities, some from just after the War.”
You are quite wrong here. Operation Sealion had already been planned.
Hitler, whilst deeming the Brits to be of better stock than the Slavs, also considered the Island Fortress a home of ‘Unter Menschen’ with power on the Seas he was deeply jealous of. And with Dominions he wanted. Including the States.
So go and play with your devious, pious rag head friends, and just Fuck Off! 84. Straight Shooter (31) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Wow, 83 comments! Did I miss something? Should I care? 85. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
gatcollie if New Zealand was stealing land and bulldozing homes in Australia they have the right to bomb us i guess kiwis respect the rights of ozzy’s to live on there own land in peace, something your having trouble understanding you are right about something though the UN can not be trusted and israel has blood on its hands 86. joeAverage (32) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
whos the first poster to step up to the plate and go and fight Israel, BIG SILENCE , opps worrying about our jobs next year are we,yer 87. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
jastowns (77) Vote: 0 1 Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
You and Spoff are the true Trolls. Your views are simply that. Certainly not bullet proof truth.
A question for both of you?
Been to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Lebanon?
I have.
So if you don’t like a personal view based on experience, and not Dogma then tough.
You are just lying, brainwashed gits! 88. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Google King David Hotel, Patria, Rome Embassy bombing 1946, Lavon Affair, Irgun Terrorism, Deir Yassin, Shatila, Sabra. That should do for starters.
Fast and loose with facts here, you prannock. David Ben Gurion was a terrorist, and capable killer. Along with Moshe Dyan.
Put Rag Heads on them, and you would call them ‘Freedom Fighters’
Funny how the Left love the despotic, controlling autocracies of the Levant, North Africa, and Trans Jordan.
Don’t try and re-write history bufoons.
You have no idea. Sensitive, Fuck yes, how many mates have you lost to stone age fundamentalists? 89. Grant (268) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
So tell us, Reid and jastowns, what should Israel do then? Just let itself be overun possibly? Should they form an orderly queue on the beach and wait for instructions from their new masters? Do you not agree that Hamas and co would be happy to see the Jewish state destroyed? Do you personally think that that is a worthy aim? Would you support such destuction? You are obviously uncomfortable with the deaths of Palestinian civilians, would the deaths of Jewish civilians, as a result of the desired destruction, be of lesser import? Perhaps they deserve it in your opinion.
G 90. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
glutaemus vote 1019 like i give a fuck ive been all over the world but i would expect a troll to say he has inside knowledge so ive put testimony from someone that was there and killed there by being run over from a Israeli bulldozer tearing down Palestinian homes also i asked you to put some facts on your claims pollyanna
enjoy a true story from gaza 91. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Next these Latte drinking socialists will be telling us that Saddam was misunderstood, that Ghaddafi was innocent, Mugabe is still a war hero.
Entebbe was piracy, and the Munich Massacre just went a bit wrong!
The left hate Jews. Simple fact. They prefer to side with the ‘Freedom Fighters’, whose indiscriminate killings (purposeful) are completely acceptable.
Intervention in Desert Storm 1 was avoidable! How?
Fuck off muppet! 92. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“what should Israel do then?”
Uh Grant, it’s pretty obvious isn’t it?
One definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result.
Has 50 years of oppressive bloodshed by Israel and 50 years of reactive bloodshed from the Palestinians produced a result? No? So how about BOTH sides being forced to sit down with a neutral powerful world player and made to listen on pain of punishment?
Unfortunately the US has ruled itself out of this game by its curiously sycophantic approach to all things Israel. So who would you suggest is capable of playing this role?
Both sides are evidently quite incapable of solving their own problem, I think one important thing is for some people who’ve commented today including yourself, to understand it’s not a one-sided issue. How about a little objectivity and a tad of research that goes beyond the sites that proclaim poor widdle Iswael is just a widdle victim… 93. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Answer the question Jastowns, please.
Have you ever been to the area we are furiously debating?
Or are you just another OE backpacker with funds supplied by Mummy and Daddy?
Don’t suppose you ever did Military Service?
No, I thought not.
Trust Baby! 94. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“The left hate Jews.”
Try not to associate disagreement with Israeli policies with leftist politics Glutaemus. I’m a conservative as you probably know. Left-right politics has nothing to do with justice. Only lefties obfuscate that issue. You’re not a lefty, are you? 95. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
For the record, I think Israelis are some of the most obnoxious people I have ever had the misfortune to meet.
FFS they are even more arrogant than SAFA’s and with a very weird accent.
They are both results of continuous threat from a much larger population group. 96. TomYum (6) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Ryan S - I don’t often agree with your posts, but in this thread I have been mightily impressed with a cool head under fire - arguing the facts, addressing the argument and ignoring the personal abuse. Well done, I appreciate your contribution to the debate. While whoever “wins” the debate on Kiwiblog is unimportant and trivial, it is good to see that some people can engage in thoughtful discourse, and play the ball rather than the man. And I must say I don’t even like sport, let alone lawn bowls. Cheers. Tom 97. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
At the time of the June 1967 war it was stridently asserted by Israel’s supporters that Egyptian President Gamal Nasser threatened to drive the Israelis into the sea. This claim, for which there was no evidence at all, was almost universally believed in the West and it had a powerful effect on public opinion in Britain and the United States at that time.
Even if that wasn’t said, Egypt still clearly wanted to destroy Israel. In 1967, Egypt evicted the UN from the Egypt/Israel border, which had been stationed there since the last war to keep the peace between the two nations. Egypt then began sending its own military to the border. It eventually massed 100,000 troops at the border, as well as tanks and artilary.
Before that Egypt had also blocked the Strait of Tiran with warships. This was Israel’s only connection to the Red Sea. Under international law this is seen as an act of war, and any attack by Israel would have been justified. However, Israel tried and tried and tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic measures.
And despite what ever reference you have Spoff, Egypt’s President Nasser said: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”
Egypt was clearly planning a full on military attack on Israel. Israel was completely out numbered and out gunned. It’s only chance at survival was a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. 98. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Reid I would suggest that the existence of a “neutral powerful world player” is on a par with the existence of the fountain of youth.
My point is that all the pro Palestinian posters on here, and in the MSM, cannot bring themselves to admit that Israel’s capitulation to the demands of its foes will mean the deaths of very many people. That is the long and the short of it. Will that make you be happy ?
Also, your sarcasm in the last paragraph is unbecoming. No issue is ever one sided, but sometimes you have to deal with what’s in front of you. What is, is. G 100. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Reid, I apologise but the red mist decended.
Have heard too many apologists for the fundamantalists.
What happened to the Palestinians was wrong. Very Wrong. It has to be sorted out in order for there to be any glimmer of World Peace.
On December 31 2008 11:57 Wolverine wrote: For those who can't get enough of reading comments on this issue, here's 100 more from another forum I've been posting on:
1. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 26 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“after Hamas ended the ceasefire a week ago”
What ceasefire? 1500 rocket and mortar attacks into Israel from Gaza in 2008. The farce that the Hamas government are not responsible for the actions of Hamas militants, therefore are not breaking the ceasefire is exactly that - a farce. 2. The Vagus Kid (10) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 39 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
If Israel withdrew from the Palestinians land then they could have the moral high ground. Instead they insist on carrying out economic genocide and war on people trying to get back their land. It strikes me that the Israelies have a forgotton their history. If they remembered it they would perhaps have more empathy for the Palestinians.
[DPF: They did withdraw from the Palestinian land. And that land is now used to attack parts of Israel not claimed by Palestinians] 3. Put it away (143) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The only arab who wants to negotiate is one who’s run out of bullets. Everyone knows this, yet for the benefit of the bleeding heart lefties in the media, Israel has to go through this farce of pretending to believe that the terrorist party is serious about a ceasefire, and has to suffer a few thousand unprovoked rocket attacks before they act. They should just say fuck it, no ceasefire until all the terrorists are dead, all the weapons are seized, and all the borders are sealed so they can’t obtain any more. 4. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 14 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Vagus
What about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Arab countries surrounding Israel? How many Jews now live in any of them? Fact is that 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, so who stole who’s land here? 5. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 20 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
As for economic genocide, I note that Gaza also has a border with Egypt…how come Gaza isn’t free to trade with them? Must be those damn Elders of Zion conspiring again huh? 6. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 18 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Over 700,000 Jews were forceably evicted from Arab lands after the establishment of Israel. Many from places where they had lived continusouly for nearly two thousand years. Even now in Yemen, a local Jew (who looked more Yemeni than any Jew I have ever seen) was stabebd to death for refusing to convert to Islam. 7. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TJCO - You are right. Egyptian border police fired on Gazan Arabs trying to enter Egypt just yesterday. 8. Murray (2106) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I think its the vague kid who needsto do some work on his grasp of history.
Untill the palestinian charter stops having the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews as its first item then there is nothing to “negotiate”.
Meanwhile perhaps the vague one could name for us one other single country that would sit there and be bombarded by misiles at a greater rate than Britain did under V1 and V2 attacks and do nothing in response. Idiots continuing to use extreemist retoric like “economic genocide” has led to the situation that Iarael is screwed if they don’t defend themselves and screwed if they do. That they finally decided to be hung for the sheep as the lamb should come as no suprise to anyone.
Go Israel. 9. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 17 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Exactly TJCO. Gaza also borders on the Mediterranean Sea. What’s stopping them from using that border?
I don’t see why Gaza must rely on Israel for supplies. They want to be independent territory, so why must they rely on another country? Instead of spending all their time attacking Israel, why not concentrate on helping their own people and building their region?
Brian Smaller, you’re totally right. Tens of thousands of Jews were evicted from the Arab countries in which they lived when Israel declared independence. While those countries also told Arabs in Israel to leave, Israel asked them to stay, and that if they did, they’d be given citizenship and the exact same rights as every other Israeli. 10. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 23 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Also, I must say that Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any other Arab country. 11. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Exactly, Israel being the only democracy in the entire region has arab members of parliament and appointees to the Israeli Supreme Court…actually the fact that ALL its citizens have recourse to the courts at all is something missing in the surrounding countries… 12. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 16 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I don’t see why Gaza must rely on Israel for supplies. They want to be independent territory, so why must they rely on another country?
Their access to the rest of the world is very restricted by Israeli blockading and Israeli air space. Over the last six months, Israel has blockaded supplies in response to rocket attacks, and opened supply routes after periods of no rocket attacks. It’s a less violent form of retaliation than bombing, but I’m not sure what the stats are on loss of life due to lack of medical supplies. 13. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 14 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Israel has repeatedly in the past opened its hospitals to patients from Gaza and the West Bank. Again Ryan, Given Gaza’s border with Egypt and access to the coast, why does it require any economic input from Israel at all? 14. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Their access to the rest of the world is very restricted by Israeli blockading and Israeli air space.”
No it’s not. Their access to Israel has been restricted, not the rest of the world. They also have a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have also blocked. So it’s not just the Israelis blocking their supplies. And besides, they also border on the Mediterranean Sea, which Israel is not blocking. They’re free to get supplies from that route. 15. Murray (2106) Vote: Add rating 17 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
How the fuck do the IDF block other peoples borders? They don’t.
BTW the palestinian problem was created by the Arab states who refsed to take them, not by Israel that would accept them. 16. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
TJCO,
Ideally it wouldn’t have to. But the border with Egypt is controlled by both Egypt and Israel, as part of an agreement between Egypt and Israel in ‘82. It’s currently supposed to be controlled by a third-party EU police force, but they’ve pulled out after Hamas was elected, because Hamas is on their list of terrorist organisations.
It’s just been opened up by Egypt to let medical supplies through, in response to the recent bombings. 17. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
No it’s not. Their access to Israel has been restricted, not the rest of the world. They also have a border with Egypt, which the Egyptians have also blocked. So it’s not just the Israelis blocking their supplies. And besides, they also border on the Mediterranean Sea, which Israel is not blocking. They’re free to get supplies from that route.
According to that report, Israel won’t rule out the possibility of interfering with a Gazan seaport, and so donors are holding back on building it or something.
But yes, you’re right, Egypt is part of the problem when it comes to trade with Gaza. 18. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Ryan Sproull, despite all that, Gaza still has a long stretch of its border on the Mediterranean Sea which they are free to use.
Israel and Egypt have no obligation to help Gaza. They have every right to close their borders to it. 19. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Israel and Egypt have no obligation to help Gaza. They have every right to close their borders to it.
They have the right to do so, yes, but the moral question of the effects on innocents remains. 20. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Particularly if they insist on electing Hamas to government whose Charter proscribes the destruction of Israel as its purpose. 21. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 13 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Lets not forget that Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank for the purpose of a Palestinian State, whereupon Yasser Arafat responded with suicide bombers and the resumption of the intifada… 22. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Particularly if they insist on electing Hamas to government whose Charter proscribes the destruction of Israel as its purpose.
Yeah, that’s a tricky one. It seems anti-democratic to attempt to influence future elections in ways you like, by imposing economic sanctions. But then, it’s one of the few ways to influence the behaviour of a government short of threatening military action. I guess the problem with a country with few borders, where none of its neighbours are cooperative, is that the actions of a few countries can prevent trade with every country. 23. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Lets not forget that Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank for the purpose of a Palestinian State, whereupon Yasser Arafat responded with suicide bombers and the resumption of the intifada…
I’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. 24. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 16 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Hamas or Fatah - who cares - they are all the same as far as I am concerned.
We keep hearing about gaza being a concentration camp, yet I have yet to see anyone starving. Perhaps the stupids Hamas militants shouldn’t have destroyed all those huge greenhouses the Israeli’s nicely left behind for them. Some stupid “peace” boat went into Gaza a few months back and Israelis wouldn’t let the dumb bitch running the show leave through their terrotory and she blogged about starving Gazans and such like. Trouble is she was photographed in a well stocked supermarket buying groceries which included Mars bars. Any news out of the ME that has AP, Reuters or any stringer with al- in his name should be regarded as propaganda and nothing more. 25. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
They have the right to do so, yes, but the moral question of the effects on innocents remains.
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets. 26. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 13 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Ryan - what moral obligation is there to people who rocket and mortar you every day for years on end and whom elected a government who have as a founding a principal your own death. You would hand your killer the knife. 27. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 15 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets.
That’s essentially collective punishment. It’s not “The Palestinians” firing rockets. It’s a minority of Palestinians firing rockets, and the response is to punish every Palestinian for those crimes. The people being punished are not the people committing the crimes. 28. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
They have no moral obligation to open the border. It would be great if Israel could help the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, but the fact is that Palestinians are firing rockets at civilians in Israel. The border will open when they stop firing rockets.
That’s essentially collective punishment. It’s not “The Palestinians” firing rockets. It’s a minority of Palestinians firing rockets, and the response is to punish every Palestinian for those crimes. The people being punished are not the people committing the crimes.
It’s not about punishing anyone. It’s about stopping rockets being fired at innocent civilians in your own country! 29. Chuck Bird (343) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
There is only one way the problem in the Middle East will be solved and that is for the Moslems to recognise Israel’s right to exist. Arguments about whether the UN should have given Israel to the Jews are stupid and ill relevant.
Rightly or wrongly Israel exists. It has a very strong military force with nuclear weapons. Israel is not going to voluntarily go away. The argument about disproportionate force is ridiculous. Does the UN expect Israel to only kill one terrorist for every innocent civilian that gets murdered?
The UN should go do something useful in Zimbabwe and stop making stupid statements that only encourage terrorist. 30. TJCO (58) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’ve yet to see any spontaneous demonstrations in Gaza protesting against the use of rockets… 31. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ryan - what moral obligation is there to people who rocket and mortar you every day for years on end and whom elected a government who have as a founding a principal your own death. You would hand your killer the knife.
It’s not quite every day for years on end, but again, the people firing those rockets aren’t a collective called Palestinians. They’re small groups of Palestinians. As for voting in Hamas rather than Fatah, not every Palestinian voted for Hamas, and we can’t know that those who did weren’t simply voting for the lesser of two evils. But seeing civilians as fair game because they elected the wrong government is a dodgy path to start down, and is in line with al-Qaeda’s justification for attacking American civilians.
I would not hand my killer the knife. But I wouldn’t withhold food and medicine from someone purely because they’re from the same country as my killer. 32. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It’s not about punishing anyone. It’s about stopping rockets being fired at innocent civilians in your own country!
Well, it’s working great. 33. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 12 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Iran’s jews condemn Israel. US jews silent. 34. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I would not hand my killer the knife. But I wouldn’t withhold food and medicine from someone purely because they’re from the same country as my killer.
But would you withhold food and medicine from someone, who could get them from other sources, if it stopped your killer getting a knife?
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens. 35. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Iran’s jews condemn Israel. US jews silent.
Jewish Americans not silent. That includes New York. Hell, there are 13 Palestinian solidarity organisations in Israel. 36. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 13 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game”
Yes Max, it does.
Israel’s siege of Gaza began on 5 November, the day after an Israeli attack inside the strip, no doubt designed finally to undermine the truce between Israel and Hamas established last June. Although both sides had violated the agreement before, this incursion was on a different scale. Hamas responded by firing rockets into Israel and the violence has not abated since then. Israel’s siege has two fundamental goals. One is to ensure that the Palestinians there are seen merely as a humanitarian problem, beggars who have no political identity and therefore can have no political claims. The second is to foist Gaza onto Egypt. That is why the Israelis tolerate the hundreds of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt around which an informal but increasingly regulated commercial sector has begun to form. The overwhelming majority of Gazans are impoverished and officially 49.1 per cent are unemployed. In fact the prospect of steady employment is rapidly disappearing for the majority of the population.
On 5 November the Israeli government sealed all the ways into and out of Gaza. Food, medicine, fuel, parts for water and sanitation systems, fertiliser, plastic sheeting, phones, paper, glue, shoes and even teacups are no longer getting through in sufficient quantities or at all. According to Oxfam only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza in November. This means that an average of 4.6 trucks per day entered the strip compared to an average of 123 in October this year and 564 in December 2005. The two main food providers in Gaza are the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the World Food Programme (WFP). UNRWA alone feeds approximately 750,000 people in Gaza, and requires 15 trucks of food daily to do so. Between 5 November and 30 November, only 23 trucks arrived, around 6 per cent of the total needed; during the week of 30 November it received 12 trucks, or 11 per cent of what was required. There were three days in November when UNRWA ran out of food, with the result that on each of these days 20,000 people were unable to receive their scheduled supply. According to John Ging, the director of UNRWA in Gaza, most of the people who get food aid are entirely dependent on it. On 18 December UNRWA suspended all food distribution for both emergency and regular programmes because of the blockade.
The WFP has had similar problems, sending only 35 trucks out of the 190 it had scheduled to cover Gazans’ needs until the start of February (six more were allowed in between 30 November and 6 December). Not only that: the WFP has to pay to store food that isn’t being sent to Gaza. This cost $215,000 in November alone. If the siege continues, the WFP will have to pay an extra $150,000 for storage in December, money that will be used not to support Palestinians but to benefit Israeli business.
The majority of commercial bakeries in Gaza – 30 out of 47 – have had to close because they have run out of cooking gas. People are using any fuel they can find to cook with. As the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has made clear, cooking-gas canisters are necessary for generating the warmth to incubate broiler chicks. Shortages of gas and animal feed have forced commercial producers to smother hundreds of thousands of chicks. By April, according to the FAO, there will be no poultry there at all: 70 per cent of Gazans rely on chicken as a major source of protein.
Banks, suffering from Israeli restrictions on the transfer of banknotes into the territory were forced to close on 4 December. A sign on the door of one read: ‘Due to the decision of the Palestinian Finance Authority, the bank will be closed today Thursday, 4.12.2008, because of the unavailability of cash money, and the bank will be reopened once the cash money is available.’
The World Bank has warned that Gaza’s banking system could collapse if these restrictions continue. All cash for work programmes has been stopped and on 19 November UNRWA suspended its cash assistance programme to the most needy. It also ceased production of textbooks because there is no paper, ink or glue in Gaza. This will affect 200,000 students returning to school in the new year. On 11 December, the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, sent $25 million following an appeal from the Palestinian prime minister, Salaam Fayad, the first infusion of its kind since October. It won’t even cover a month’s salary for Gaza’s 77,000 civil servants.
On 13 November production at Gaza’s only power station was suspended and the turbines shut down because it had run out of industrial diesel. This in turn caused the two turbine batteries to run down, and they failed to start up again when fuel was received some ten days later. About a hundred spare parts ordered for the turbines have been sitting in the port of Ashdod in Israel for the last eight months, waiting for the Israeli authorities to let them through customs. Now Israel has started to auction these parts because they have been in customs for more than 45 days. The proceeds are being held in Israeli accounts.
During the week of 30 November, 394,000 litres of industrial diesel were allowed in for the power plant: approximately 18 per cent of the weekly minimum that Israel is legally obliged to allow in. It was enough for one turbine to run for two days before the plant was shut down again. The Gaza Electricity Distribution Company said that most of the Gaza Strip will be without electricity for between four and 12 hours a day. At any given time during these outages, over 65,000 people have no electricity.
No other diesel fuel (for standby generators and transport) was delivered during that week, no petrol (which has been kept out since early November) or cooking gas. Gaza’s hospitals are apparently relying on diesel and gas smuggled from Egypt via the tunnels; these supplies are said to be administered and taxed by Hamas. Even so, two of Gaza’s hospitals have been out of cooking gas since the week of 23 November.
Adding to the problems caused by the siege are those created by the political divisions between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas Authority in Gaza. For example, Gaza’s Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), which is not controlled by Hamas, is supposed to receive funds from the World Bank via the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) in Ramallah to pay for fuel to run the pumps for Gaza’s sewage system. Since June, the PWA has refused to hand over those funds, perhaps because it feels that a functioning sewage system would benefit Hamas. I don’t know whether the World Bank has attempted to intervene, but meanwhile UNRWA is providing the fuel, although they have no budget for it. The CMWU has also asked Israel’s permission to import 200 tons of chlorine, but by the end of November it had received only 18 tons – enough for one week of chlorinated water. By mid-December Gaza City and the north of Gaza had access to water only six hours every three days.
According to the World Health Organisation, the political divisions between Gaza and the West Bank are also having a serious impact on drug stocks in Gaza. The West Bank Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for procuring and delivering most of the pharmaceuticals and medical disposables used in Gaza. But stocks are at dangerously low levels. Throughout November the MOH West Bank was turning shipments away because it had no warehouse space, yet it wasn’t sending supplies on to Gaza in adequate quantities. During the week of 30 November, one truck carrying drugs and medical supplies from the MOH in Ramallah entered Gaza, the first delivery since early September.
The breakdown of an entire society is happening in front of us, but there is little international response beyond UN warnings which are ignored. The European Union announced recently that it wanted to strengthen its relationship with Israel while the Israeli leadership openly calls for a large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip and continues its economic stranglehold over the territory with, it appears, the not-so-tacit support of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah – which has been co-operating with Israel on a number of measures. On 19 December Hamas officially ended its truce with Israel, which Israel said it wanted to renew, because of Israel’s failure to ease the blockade.
How can keeping food and medicine from the people of Gaza protect the people of Israel? How can the impoverishment and suffering of Gaza’s children – more than 50 per cent of the population – benefit anyone? International law as well as human decency demands their protection. If Gaza falls, the West Bank will be next.
37. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
But would you withhold food and medicine from someone, who could get them from other sources, if it stopped your killer getting a knife?
Yes, I would. But I think you can have economic sanctions on weaponry (EDIT: and luxuries) without preventing fuel, medicine and food getting through.
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens.
That’s the thing. To me, civilians are civilians. I would rather no one was killed, but I’d rather one civilian was killed than 50 civilians were killed, if I was forced to make such a horrible choice. 38. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Ryan - by the logic of your argument WWII would still be going on. Collective punishment is what happens when countries war with one another. Show me a war in the history of humankind where that was not the case?
Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people. Hell, they let 250 terrorists go the other day alone. They are all well fed and well looked after. Israeli soldiers taken prisoner generally get their balls cut off and end up dumped a few years later. 39. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 8 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
As far as limiting what gets into the country of your enemy - Germany tried it with unrestricted U Boat warfare in WWII. Napoleon and Britain tried it against each other in the Napoleonic Wars. It is a legitimate tactic when at war. 40. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Ryan - by the logic of your argument WWII would still be going on. Collective punishment is what happens when countries war with one another. Show me a war in the history of humankind where that was not the case?
I was responding to MaxPower saying that the blockades would stop when the rockets stopped. That doesn’t sound like war to me, but if you’re trying to convince me that something is a good idea, “It’s war!” is not the way to my heart.
Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people. Hell, they let 250 terrorists go the other day alone. They are all well fed and well looked after. Israeli soldiers taken prisoner generally get their balls cut off and end up dumped a few years later.
That doesn’t change my point - the blockades hurt people who aren’t committing the crimes used to justify the blockades. And “Israel has bent over backwards to appease these people” is a matter of opinion - an opinion that seems to fly in the face of things like continued bulldozing of farms and evicting people to make way for Israeli settlements. 41. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Israel doesn’t see Palestinian civilians as fair game. They try to minimise civilian casualties, but their main concern is their own citizens.
That’s the thing. To me, civilians are civilians. I would rather no one was killed, but I’d rather one civilian was killed than 50 civilians were killed, if I was forced to make such a horrible choice.
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident. 42. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Meanwhile, in the US, Obama remains at “No comment” position, despite all prospects for ME peace disappearing down the gurgler…
Gee, talk about shutting down his previously available options, wonder who would possibli have a vested interest in doing that? 43. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
As far as limiting what gets into the country of your enemy - Germany tried it with unrestricted U Boat warfare in WWII.
I have to say, I’ve never heard “but the Nazis did it first” used as a justification. 44. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident.
When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident. 45. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ryan “I have to say, I’ve never heard “but the Nazis did it first” used as a justification.”
what a dick you are. The Germans also tried in in WWI and nearly succeeded. Blockade has been done in just about every major war for thousands of years. Napoleon and Britain tried it in the Napoleonic Wars on each other (the Continental System and the British Blockade). It is a legitimate tactic of war. 46. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 17 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
this story is propaganda that israel has produced,israel is stealing land killing inocint woman and children and bullshit post like this want you to believe they are the good guys heres the real story The stinking smell of a conspiracy, a disaster, a political plan is behind the Israeli “war” against the population of Gaza. The Israeli military “Operation Cast Lead” did not begin as a result of adduced rocket-spiegel“self defense” against Palestinian rockets, which appear to be made and shot for the most part in Israel itself or distributed by the employees of Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, the Israeli intelligence system, to collaborators within the Palestinian resistance. It also has nothing to do with the primitive, home made rockets of the Palestinian resistance, or because Hamas had ended the weak truce after six month of continuous Israeli blockade against one million and a half persons in the concentration camp of Gaza. And it also has nothing to do with Israel wanting to free the Israeli-French war criminal Gilad Shalit captured by Hamas.
Nobody showed the hundred tons of explosives which the Israel Air Force dropped on the police stations and civilian offices in Gaza, leading to the death of over 300 civilian and police, and the injury of over 1000 persons, hundreds of them in critical condition. The western media has manipulated the information so that everyone believes that the Israeli destruction and ethnic cleansing of a nation is some kind of “self defense”, that Israel is some kind of “victim”. The world is not so naïve to believe that Israeli intelligence Chief Yuval Diskin, 880f857Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be able to hide the purpose of their abject crimes against the population of Gaza and their will to massacre hundreds, or even thousands, in order to win the coming Israeli elections with scenes of bodies without heads, and legs without foots of the Palestinian victims in order to placate the blood-thirsty masses of Israel. 47. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Israel is not [trying to kill civilians].
Well they’re certainly making a hell of a lot of mistakes then Max, had a look at the list of recent targets they’ve hit?
As I said on the general thread, if Israel really wanted to eliminate the Qassams, they’d equip the Palistinian police to do it. 48. Fletch (231) Vote: Add rating 15 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The whole protest thing is a farce. Do a quick search of Google on ‘protest’, ‘Israel’, and ‘Gaza’ and you’ll read about thousands of people in cities around the world (including Paris and Canada) coming out to protest Israel’s attack on Gaza. Where were these same people when Israel was getting shelled by 80 rockets a day? Who was protesting then?
No one. It bloody stinks.
People are afraid to criticize anything Muslim, but when it comes to Israel it’s open season. Did they expect Israel to just sit and do nothing? Just take the bombardment?
Hypocrites. 49. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
That’s the thing though; the people firing rockets at Israel are trying to kill civilians. Israel is not. Israel is trying to attack militant targets and avoid civilian casualties. The one civilian you talk about would have been killed on purpose by militants in Gaza; the 50 civilians killed would be by accident.
When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident.
True, but my point is that the militants in Gaza are trying to kill civilians. Israel is trying to avoid it. 50. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“When you know that your actions are going to cause civilian deaths, it’s not an accident.”
So you HAVE just handed your killer the knife. You know your enemy hides behind civillians. Therefore you don’t shoot in case you hit them. You might as well shoot yourself and save the enemy the bother. 51. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
what a dick you are. The Germans also tried in in WWI and nearly succeeded. Blockade has been done in just about every major war for thousands of years. Napoleon and Britain tried it in the Napoleonic Wars on each other (the Continental System and the British Blockade). It is a legitimate tactic of war.
That doesn’t make it a good thing. 52. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
True, but my point is that the militants in Gaza are trying to kill civilians. Israel is trying to avoid it.
Well, it would seem they’re both very shit at their jobs. 53. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
rEID “As I said on the general thread, if Israel really wanted to eliminate the Qassams, they’d equip the Palistinian police to do it.”
PLEASE tell me that you are not that naive. Israel supplied tens of thousands of weapons to the PA over the years. Look what it has got them. 54. Brian Smaller (584) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“That doesn’t make it a good thing”
How do you embed a quote?
War is not a good thing. I don’t know anyone, with the exception of a few mercenaries serving overseas, who does. But if you fight it you do it properly. If one side has point and kill zap guns and the other is armed with fruit then all the better for the first side. Disproportional response is what people whose favourite side is losing cry out. 55. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
How do you embed a quote?
*blockquote*TEXT*/blockquote*
But with triangle bracket things replacing the *. 56. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
War is not a good thing. I don’t know anyone, with the exception of a few mercenaries serving overseas, who does. But if you fight it you do it properly. If one side has point and kill zap guns and the other is armed with fruit then all the better for the first side. Disproportional response is what people whose favourite side is losing cry out.
Okay, if this is a war (and I’m not saying it is), what are the goals of the war? 57. fatnuts (6) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
How can Israel claim to be acting in self defense, or pursuing peace as long as it actively confiscates land outside its legitimate borders for the settlement of its own civilians?
This attack is a continuing smoke screen for the land grab; the annexation of Jerusalem and the prevention of a viable Palestinian state in the West bank.
If Israel was pursuing ‘peace’ then it would remove the illegal West bank settlements as it removed the same from Gaza, and the Sinai. 58. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The rocket attacks are crimes. Does someone have something up their sleeves that wipes out crime they’re not telling us about? 59. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 11 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
i guess israel has a friend at kiwiblog
* News * World news * Israel and the Palestinian territories
Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction Foreign minister briefs Rice, Miliband, and Solana
* Toni O’Loughlin, Jerusalem * guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 December 2008 15.45 GMT * Article history
Israel has mounted a public relations campaign to convince international hearts and minds that Hamas is to blame for the death and destruction they are seeing on their television screens.
Stung by the wave of international criticism earlier this year when Israel invaded Gaza to stop militants firing rockets, in an operation dwarfed by its current attack, Israel decided to go on the offensive.
“In the past our prime minister received phone calls from high-ranking officials and politicians. When he said, ‘Surely you understand about the rocket fire’, they said, ‘What are you talking about?’” foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.
So, while the military marshalled its forces, the foreign ministry honed its message and amassed its staff, ready for Saturday’s attack.
Israeli diplomats were recalled from holidays and ordered back to work and in the rocket-bombarded southern Israeli town of Sderot, on Gaza’s northern perimeter, it opened a multilingual media centre to brief foreign journalists.
Then when the time came, the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, reportedly picked up the phone, dialing Britain’s foreign secretary, David Miliband, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana along with the foreign ministers of Russia, China, France and Germany.
Yesterday she also briefed two buses of up to 80 international representatives and dignitaries in the Sderot media centre.
“We thought it was essential to show the context in which Israel’s decisions are being made and that there is a sequence of events,” Palmor said.
For Israel, the chain of events leading up to this attack begins not with its occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, which is the Palestinian view.
Instead it begins three years ago with its decision to withdraw its military barracks and civilian settlements from inside Gaza.
“We could start in 1948 [with the partitioning of historical Palestine to create Israel] but if we want to limit ourselves to the current situation, I would begin with the pull-out of 2005,” Palmor said.
Palestinian militants claimed the evacuation was a victory due to their rocket-launching campaign and continued firing rockets on to Israeli southern towns.
Having built a wall around Gaza before disengagement, Israel then imposed a progressively tighter blockade, by barring Gazan labourers from entering Israel in late 2005, then by banning Gazan commercial trade in 2006 and finally in mid-2007 by squeezing humanitarian aid.
Asked whether the campaign was working, Palmor said it was too early to tell.
Still, as the attack was beginning yesterday on , the message, whether due to Israel’s campaign or not, was being publicly repeated around the world.
Rice blamed Hamas “for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence” while the Palestinian Authorityís President, Mahmoud Abbas, said the attack could have been avoided.
“We have warned of this grave danger and said that we should remove all the pretexts used by Israel,” Abbas said yesterday as the attack on Gaza continued. 60. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about and from the Christian Science Monitor Domestic politics fuels Gaza conflict. 61. Adam (230) Vote: Add rating 11 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The rocket attacks are crimes.
Oh really? I would call it an act of war. Seriously you’re too stupid for words Ryan. 62. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
{blockquote}The rocket attacks are crimes.{/blockquote}
Oh really? I would call it an act of war. Seriously you’re too stupid for words Ryan.
Use the less-than and greater-than signs for html tags.
Where would you draw the line between crimes and acts of war? 63. Adam (230) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Go play your silly little argument somewhere else. If you can tell the difference then there is no hope for you. 64. barry (270) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Frankly - I cant understand why Isreal doesnt just clear the place out (Gaza). Just destroy everything as far in as the rockets can go - and go further if bigger rockets are used.
There are many reasons why the Palestinians are not happy with the situation. The UN and the Allies fucked up after WW II - but thats not Israels fault. Its like the Scots (highland clearances), the Irish (British criminal rule), etc, etc. Theres no good livimg in the past. As it turns out the Scots and the Irish (and the Welsh) will get their independance back (already half done) without tryng to live in the past and fighting old wars. the Irish did this and they are way behing the Scots on the road to independance.
The Palestinians should be blaming the UN and the Allies, but living in the past committs them to ongoing second class status.
Further I cant understand why in all thes Arab countries there never seems to be a limit to the numbers of middle aged men who are on the streets protesting - ie: looking for trouble. They should be working or doing something to help their families grow out of the shit they are in. 65. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
It is very obvious from the posts that few here have any idea what the Palestine conflict is about. One thing is certain, you will not learn about it from the newspapers or television. I am the same age as the State of Israel and for most of my life supported it. That was until the conflict in Lebanon last year when a few alarm bells went off in my head. I now hold a different view and it is the result of reading thousands of pages of original documents inspired by the essay linked below. Anyone wishing to gain a greater understanding, and I sincerely hope that anyone who has the temerity to post on the subject would feel obliged to, I suggest reading Origins of conflict: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm It is not a long piece and is very readable. I then suggest that you double check all of the facts that the writer presents. 66. Harpoon (33) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
how many teachers, doctors, nurses, plumbers, grandparents, schoolchildren, mothers and fathers died in the Hamas rocket attacks? To the nearest ten would be sufficient. Just hazard a guess. 67. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Historical maps from 1945 with rough population estimates and the proposed borders of the UN’s 1947 partition plan. 68. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
how many teachers, doctors, nurses, plumbers, grandparents, schoolchildren, mothers and fathers died in the Hamas rocket attacks? To the nearest ten would be sufficient. Just hazard a guess.
Since 2001, 15 Israelis (wikipedia doesn’t have a reference for that particular number) have been killed by rocket attacks, and a further eight by mortar attacks. Just over 3000 rockets have been fired since 2001. 69. PhilBest (3938) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
There have been numerous cases around the world, of competing claims by different races or cultures, to the same piece of land. We have bits of land between Germany and France, between Serbia and Bosnia, between Russia and Poland, between India and Pakistan; to name but a few. In some cases, ancient hatreds seem to have been buried and peaceful coexistence achieved, irrespective of the issues of which nation possesses the disputed territory.
In other cases, it has been necessary for a compromise solution to be imposed by the international community through the UN. These compromise solutions involve a physical separation of the incompatible peoples, with the displacement of significant numbers of both. Obviously, the solution designed will attempt to be as fair as possible, and draw borders that require the minimum amount of displacement of peoples. This was the case with the UN-designed “1946 borders” of Israel and Jordan and a “Palestinian State”. However, this solution assumed a peaceful coexistence, and did not allow for defensibility of the borders of the new Jewish State; in fact one would even wonder if the Europeans involved had any intention of the new State surviving at all, when the facts on the ground at the time are considered. I mean, a State that over a significant amount of its length, is 15 miles wide, between the Mediterranean sea and its sworn enemies………get real?
OK, the Jewish State embarrassed its creators by daring to survive, and in the process, taking defensive positions beyond its original borders while reasonably awaiting end-of-conflict non-aggression agreements. Note that NO JEWS remained in “Palestinian” or Arabic areas, while several hundred thousand Arabs remained within the borders of Israel. This should tell us a lot about the moral status of the adversaries; but no, Israel’s detractors choose to focus solely on displaced Arabs, rather than displaced Jews and their legitimate fears in the event that they remained in Arab dominated areas.
The point that I find is crucial, when discussing these issues with New Zealanders, is that almost everyone has no concept of the size of the territories in dispute. This is not France and Germany; or India and Pakistan. We are talking about a State, Israel, that is about the size of the lower North Island of NZ from Wanganui to Wellington, only, at its narrowest point, no wider than the Kapiti Coast. We are talking about territories disputed by the “Palestinians”, that are about the size of Upper Hutt. Imagine the Kapiti Coast being populated by Jews, and the overlooking ranges being populated by “Palestinians”. Would you deny the Jews the right to hold onto at least the first range of hills overlooking their towns, in the absence of clear, sworn, and demonstrated peaceability on the part of the Arabs? What we are talking about here, is a tacit “Final Solution” that you can either endorse or reject; what you choose says a lot more about you than it does about Israel.
There are surrounding nations that are kin to the “Palestinian” Arabs; Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia; these nations are in total a hundred times the size of Israel, hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. Yet the possibility of the absorption of the displaced “Palestinians” by these nations never comes up; the focus is entirely on 18,000 square km Israel being demanded to relinquish 4,000 square km of strategic territory that virtually cuts it in half, to people who remain avowedly devoted to Israel’s destruction.
I have said this before and will keep saying it. If the “Palestinans”, and Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were all Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or anything except Islamic, the descendants of the displaced “Palestinians” would all long since have got themselves a life in the land to which they had been displaced and welcomed with open ams; in many cases merely a few kilometers from where they originally lived. Are there ANY territorial disputes anywhere in the world where Islam is involved, where this has happened? Cyprus? Bosnia? Kashmir? East Timor?
Look at India and Pakistan. How many Hindus in Pakistan? Nix. Nada. Nil. How many Muslims in India? Tens of millions. Which country still has trouble with the other side attacking it, demanding that their rights be acceded to? How many Hindu demands for a right to live in peace in Pakistan where their ancestors came from, backed up with terror attacks in Pakistan? Ever?
The international blindness to the existential threat that is Islam, in favour of an obsession with the so-called crimes of the tiny, imperilled Jewish state, can only be explained by reference to the biblical and the supernatural. It is not explicable on rational, humanist grounds. And the inability of people like Ryan Sproull to acknowledge this, merely strengthens the case against them. 70. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. in contrast, from the ceasefire Hamas announced in June, 2008 until Saturday, no Israelis had been killed by Hamas. 71. Ryan Sproull (1141) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. in contrast, from the ceasefire Hamas announced in June, 2008 until Saturday, no Israelis had been killed by Hamas.
That’s not really a contrast, since they’re vastly different timeframes. In the last decade, as compared to the last six months (which has been under a ceasefire). 72. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 12 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
spoff finally someone with a clue,tv and papers etc are propaganda tools designed to keep the public from knowing any truth about what is really going on i have been ridiculed by many here at kiwiblog for trying to shear info i have learned over the years,i think most of them are pollyannas with the agenda of keeping people away from doing there own research mainstream media hides most truth and puts its own spin on to influence there agenda,the gaza is only one of many israel has much to answer for 73. cha (168) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
In 2001-2008 rockets killed about 15 Israelis and injured 433, 74. Owen McShane (496) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 0 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Churchill über alles and the scourge of revisionism” Two recent publications assert that the brutal British and the aggressive Americans are the true villains of WWII. JOnathan Ariel writes: “Buchanan argues that had the savage Winston Churchill not corralled a certain Austrian into an untenable corner, Der Fuehrer might not have, on September 1, 1939, dispatched 1,850,000 soldiers, 3,100 tanks, 10,000 artillery pieces and 2,085 airplanes to subjugate Poland. And in turn, have the Allies “unnecessarily” declare war, two days later. Elsewhere in the book, among other distortions, Buchanan opines that it was the Allies’ folly and not Hitler’s long standing desire of ridding Europe of Jews, which was responsible for the Holocaust. Tens of millions of Europeans died needlessly because the Allies fought a war they chose not to avoid, seems to be what Pat Buchanan is selling. And Roy Williams is buying. And to boot, he wants us to buy too. But at what price?
“The liberties we currently enjoy are the going rate, I suspect.
“In an equally twisted review by Williams, this time of the leftist Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, the case is promoted that the Allied bombing of German cities was tantamount to a war crime. Baker seemingly frog marches in lock step with one Jorg Friedrich, a most unattractive apologist for Nazi conduct during the war, who has railed for years against what he deems are Britain’s “war crimes”.
“Baker says that there was no need to carpet bomb German towns and to pulverise infrastructure. This was so “unnecessary”, he declares. Suggesting, I infer, that less destructive ways (such as negotiations) were available to say, the Royal Air Force, to stop the flow of fuel, storm troopers, collaborators and bullets, earmarked for the mobile Nazi death units called the Einsatzgruppen which pillaged and raped, before merrily shooting and gassing their way through Europe and Russia.”
What I find most frightening is that all but one of the seven comments so fare endorse the views of Buchanan and his soul mate. The Germans were innocents – it was all our fault. 75. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“What I find most frightening is that all but one of the seven comments so fare endorse the views of Buchanan and his soul mate. The Germans were innocents – it was all our fault.”
If you read that into people who voice opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians Owen, you’re an idiot. 76. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
1,062 Israelis and at least 4,876 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
8,341 Israelis and 33,034 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.
Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18,147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.
Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ 77. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Bullshit baffles brains for sure.
When the declared aim of Sovreign States in the area around Israel is to take the land, and push the Zionists into the sea to drown.
Then there is an intractable problem of resolving the issues in the Region.
When you look at the quality, and track record of the ‘Haters of Zion’ then you know who it easier to business with.
I’m a Dinner Jacket is a feudal fuckwit, and the Optician who rules Baathist Syria both hate each other.
Shia v’s Sunni.
The leading Muslims are becoming a real World problem. They have ambitions to build another World Emirate.
Why should we conform to their ideals? If they don’t like the West, then move out!
They also want to de-stabilise India and China and Russia etc.
They wave the Palestinain Cause as the catalyst, and yet seem more content killing anything that brings a smile to their faces.
Secularism? They don’t want to tolerate us. Why should we be scared as to not offend them and their feudal, mediaeval, and misogynist outlook.
Their mischievous leaders are dangerous.
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, however at the moment it sure looks like every Terrorist is in fact a Muslim. 78. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Owen.
I think the reviewer indulges in a little hyperbole. Buchanan’s thesis is not nearly so shocking as this piece makes out and much of it was shared by Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, A.J. P. Taylor and other prominent military historians. The central point of interest is the offer of peace made by Hitler after Dunkirk which was on very favourable terms. It is not heresy to suggest that Churchill should have taken it as it would have preserved Britain’s Empire/treasure and Germany did not even demand her former colonies back, neither were there any conditions for Britain to disarm. In essence, the theory is that Hitler’s main phobia was Bolshevism and he wanted Britain to remain the primary Naval power. In any case, by accepting, Churchill would have bought time to re-arm. There are many books that explore these possibilities, some from just after the War. The first casualty in War is Truth. It pays to avoid becoming wedded to any dogma that proceeds from it. Another reliable dictum is that there all the actors are rational. If you are told that Hitler, the Muslims, the Serbs ….whatever, are mad, most likely you are being fed propaganda. Insane people are not organized enough to command ten people let alone an army or a Nation. 79. Don the Kiwi (140) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
A lot of fog has been descending over some of the commenters here. Did the Hamas miltants in Gaza start firing rockets into Israel around six months ago, or not? Did Israel surrender/return the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians for a homeland, hopeful of peace?
Do the Hamas Palestinians have in their Declaration the destruction of Israel, or not?
Do the Muslim Palestinians - mainly of Gaza, but elsewhere also - have as their aim, to kill all Jews (Israelis)?
I suggest that it is time to cut through the fog and face facts. Israel is certainly not lily white, and has committed what I would call gross miscalculations in relation to their land occupation, but I cannot blame them for their response when it comes to the protection of their citizens, and in fact, their very survival. 80. Spoff (94) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 9 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Right on cue here comes Bum Muscle with a dogma he is wedded to. “the declared aim of Sovreign States in the area around Israel is to take the land, and push the Zionists into the sea to drown.”
“At the time of the June 1967 war it was stridently asserted by Israel’s supporters that Egyptian President Gamal Nasser threatened to drive the Israelis into the sea. This claim, for which there was no evidence at all, was almost universally believed in the West and it had a powerful effect on public opinion in Britain and the United States at that time. In Britain one Member of Parliament even quoted it during a television program, provoking another Member of Parliament, Christopher Mayhew, to offer 5000 pounds to any of the millions of viewers who could produce evidence that Nasser had made such a statement. Mr. Mayhew repeated the offer later on television, and in the House of Commons and broadened it to include genocidal statements by other Arab leaders. As he explained in a letter to the Manchester Guardian:
“I made this 5000 pound offer with a quite serious intention. I wanted to help reassure Jewish people that, in spite of much Israeli propaganda to the contrary, responsible Arab leaders are not genocidal. Those who try to suggest otherwise are seriously mistaken and merely help to increase the fear and hatred in the Middle East which does so much to prevent a peaceful settlement.”
During the following four years Mr. Mayhew received a steady trickle of letters from eager claimants, each one producing some blood-curdling quotation from an Arab leader, usually culled straight from one pro-Israeli publication or another. Mr. Mayhew replied to each claimant, explaining that the quotation was mistranslated, wrongly attributed or invented, as the case might be, but always adding that if the claimant was not satisfied he could take him to court. Eventually, one claimant, a Mr. Warren Bergson, did take Mr. Mayhew to court. Bergson issued a writ during the October 1974 General Election for Parliament at a time when Mr. Mayhew was contesting the constituency of Bath. In February 1976 the case was heard. Significantly, Mr. Bergson was unable to offer evidence of Nasser’s alleged statement. Instead, he produced a genocidal threat alleged to have been made by the then Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, in 1948. When Mr. Mayhew produced the original statement in Arabic, however, the claimant was unable to deny that his English version was a flagrant and apparently deliberate mistranslation.” From: Facts & Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict by Clifford A. Wright http://www.answerway.com/expertans.php?category=369& expertname=abirl&catnam=Breaking+News
“The leading Muslims are becoming a real World problem. They have ambitions to build another World Emirate.”
I would be interested to see evidence of this. All I see is evidence of a certain cliche in America who openly promote a thing called the Project for the New American Century.
“If they don’t like the West, then move out!” I rather think they would like to see the West move out of such dominions as Iraq.
“They also want to de-stabilise India and China and Russia etc.”
Oh boy. Maybe one should back away quietly at this point. What the hell, one more.
“Not every Muslim is a terrorist, however at the moment it sure looks like every Terrorist is in fact a Muslim.”
Google King David Hotel, Patria, Rome Embassy bombing 1946, Lavon Affair, Irgun Terrorism, Deir Yassin, Shatila, Sabra. That should do for starters. 81. gatcollie (6) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Spoff, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. While the statistics may be correct (although, if I were you, I wouldn’t include the statistics on the UN, since I think the UN’s stance on Israel says far more about the United Nations than Israel - if you do not believe me look up the reports on the laughingly named Durban anti-racism conference), they miss the underlying problem. The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that when it intensifies it is generally (although not universally acknowledged) to be due to provocation from the Palestinians (who are being used as tools of extremists regimes who wish to hurt Israel and the West). Israel is certainly not innocent. The government has blood on its hands, and seems to have ceased to have any meaning except the protection of Jewish land. But think, what are they to do? The basis of the state is to protect its citizens. If there are rockets and terror attacks pouring over the border, what is a country to do? If it was North Korea sending hundreds of rockets over the South Korean border every week, would we still be asking who was right? If New Zealand was being bombed by rockets from Australia, what would be think of a government that stood back and did nothing to protect their citizens? 82. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 10 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Glutaemus Maximus what a pillock you are,a true pollyanna with no facts just bullshit,why dont you tell us all where your info is coming from (george bush) ??? these are the trolls i have been taking about,trying to baffle all with bullshit how about some facts with your dim witted propaganda the lies are starting to unravel and theres not a fucken thing you can do about it,and im loving it 83. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“I think the reviewer indulges in a little hyperbole. Buchanan’s thesis is not nearly so shocking as this piece makes out and much of it was shared by Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, A.J. P. Taylor and other prominent military historians. The central point of interest is the offer of peace made by Hitler after Dunkirk which was on very favourable terms. It is not heresy to suggest that Churchill should have taken it as it would have preserved Britain’s Empire/treasure and Germany did not even demand her former colonies back, neither were there any conditions for Britain to disarm. In essence, the theory is that Hitler’s main phobia was Bolshevism and he wanted Britain to remain the primary Naval power. In any case, by accepting, Churchill would have bought time to re-arm. There are many books that explore these possibilities, some from just after the War.”
You are quite wrong here. Operation Sealion had already been planned.
Hitler, whilst deeming the Brits to be of better stock than the Slavs, also considered the Island Fortress a home of ‘Unter Menschen’ with power on the Seas he was deeply jealous of. And with Dominions he wanted. Including the States.
So go and play with your devious, pious rag head friends, and just Fuck Off! 84. Straight Shooter (31) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Wow, 83 comments! Did I miss something? Should I care? 85. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
gatcollie if New Zealand was stealing land and bulldozing homes in Australia they have the right to bomb us i guess kiwis respect the rights of ozzy’s to live on there own land in peace, something your having trouble understanding you are right about something though the UN can not be trusted and israel has blood on its hands 86. joeAverage (32) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
whos the first poster to step up to the plate and go and fight Israel, BIG SILENCE , opps worrying about our jobs next year are we,yer 87. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
jastowns (77) Vote: 0 1 Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
You and Spoff are the true Trolls. Your views are simply that. Certainly not bullet proof truth.
A question for both of you?
Been to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Lebanon?
I have.
So if you don’t like a personal view based on experience, and not Dogma then tough.
You are just lying, brainwashed gits! 88. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Google King David Hotel, Patria, Rome Embassy bombing 1946, Lavon Affair, Irgun Terrorism, Deir Yassin, Shatila, Sabra. That should do for starters.
Fast and loose with facts here, you prannock. David Ben Gurion was a terrorist, and capable killer. Along with Moshe Dyan.
Put Rag Heads on them, and you would call them ‘Freedom Fighters’
Funny how the Left love the despotic, controlling autocracies of the Levant, North Africa, and Trans Jordan.
Don’t try and re-write history bufoons.
You have no idea. Sensitive, Fuck yes, how many mates have you lost to stone age fundamentalists? 89. Grant (268) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
So tell us, Reid and jastowns, what should Israel do then? Just let itself be overun possibly? Should they form an orderly queue on the beach and wait for instructions from their new masters? Do you not agree that Hamas and co would be happy to see the Jewish state destroyed? Do you personally think that that is a worthy aim? Would you support such destuction? You are obviously uncomfortable with the deaths of Palestinian civilians, would the deaths of Jewish civilians, as a result of the desired destruction, be of lesser import? Perhaps they deserve it in your opinion.
G 90. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 8 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
glutaemus vote 1019 like i give a fuck ive been all over the world but i would expect a troll to say he has inside knowledge so ive put testimony from someone that was there and killed there by being run over from a Israeli bulldozer tearing down Palestinian homes also i asked you to put some facts on your claims pollyanna http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPf29ZOWkg&feature=PlayList&p=194C562FA9857BD5&playnext=1&index=8 enjoy a true story from gaza 91. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Next these Latte drinking socialists will be telling us that Saddam was misunderstood, that Ghaddafi was innocent, Mugabe is still a war hero.
Entebbe was piracy, and the Munich Massacre just went a bit wrong!
The left hate Jews. Simple fact. They prefer to side with the ‘Freedom Fighters’, whose indiscriminate killings (purposeful) are completely acceptable.
Intervention in Desert Storm 1 was avoidable! How?
Fuck off muppet! 92. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 7 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“what should Israel do then?”
Uh Grant, it’s pretty obvious isn’t it?
One definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result.
Has 50 years of oppressive bloodshed by Israel and 50 years of reactive bloodshed from the Palestinians produced a result? No? So how about BOTH sides being forced to sit down with a neutral powerful world player and made to listen on pain of punishment?
Unfortunately the US has ruled itself out of this game by its curiously sycophantic approach to all things Israel. So who would you suggest is capable of playing this role?
Both sides are evidently quite incapable of solving their own problem, I think one important thing is for some people who’ve commented today including yourself, to understand it’s not a one-sided issue. How about a little objectivity and a tad of research that goes beyond the sites that proclaim poor widdle Iswael is just a widdle victim… 93. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Answer the question Jastowns, please.
Have you ever been to the area we are furiously debating?
Or are you just another OE backpacker with funds supplied by Mummy and Daddy?
Don’t suppose you ever did Military Service?
No, I thought not.
Trust Baby! 94. reid (1505) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 2 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“The left hate Jews.”
Try not to associate disagreement with Israeli policies with leftist politics Glutaemus. I’m a conservative as you probably know. Left-right politics has nothing to do with justice. Only lefties obfuscate that issue. You’re not a lefty, are you? 95. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 4 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
For the record, I think Israelis are some of the most obnoxious people I have ever had the misfortune to meet.
FFS they are even more arrogant than SAFA’s and with a very weird accent.
They are both results of continuous threat from a much larger population group. 96. TomYum (6) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Ryan S - I don’t often agree with your posts, but in this thread I have been mightily impressed with a cool head under fire - arguing the facts, addressing the argument and ignoring the personal abuse. Well done, I appreciate your contribution to the debate. While whoever “wins” the debate on Kiwiblog is unimportant and trivial, it is good to see that some people can engage in thoughtful discourse, and play the ball rather than the man. And I must say I don’t even like sport, let alone lawn bowls. Cheers. Tom 97. MaxPower (15) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 1 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
At the time of the June 1967 war it was stridently asserted by Israel’s supporters that Egyptian President Gamal Nasser threatened to drive the Israelis into the sea. This claim, for which there was no evidence at all, was almost universally believed in the West and it had a powerful effect on public opinion in Britain and the United States at that time.
Even if that wasn’t said, Egypt still clearly wanted to destroy Israel. In 1967, Egypt evicted the UN from the Egypt/Israel border, which had been stationed there since the last war to keep the peace between the two nations. Egypt then began sending its own military to the border. It eventually massed 100,000 troops at the border, as well as tanks and artilary.
Before that Egypt had also blocked the Strait of Tiran with warships. This was Israel’s only connection to the Red Sea. Under international law this is seen as an act of war, and any attack by Israel would have been justified. However, Israel tried and tried and tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic measures.
And despite what ever reference you have Spoff, Egypt’s President Nasser said: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”
Egypt was clearly planning a full on military attack on Israel. Israel was completely out numbered and out gunned. It’s only chance at survival was a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. 98. jastowns (83) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 6 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Reid I would suggest that the existence of a “neutral powerful world player” is on a par with the existence of the fountain of youth.
My point is that all the pro Palestinian posters on here, and in the MSM, cannot bring themselves to admit that Israel’s capitulation to the demands of its foes will mean the deaths of very many people. That is the long and the short of it. Will that make you be happy ?
Also, your sarcasm in the last paragraph is unbecoming. No issue is ever one sided, but sometimes you have to deal with what’s in front of you. What is, is. G 100. Glutaemus Maximus (1030) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says: December 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Reid, I apologise but the red mist decended.
Have heard too many apologists for the fundamantalists.
What happened to the Palestinians was wrong. Very Wrong. It has to be sorted out in order for there to be any glimmer of World Peace.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
Congratulations on looking like the biggest retard ever, what Xeris said isnt stupid, you are stupid GTFO
Fuck you, he said that you can't prove intent by the words of "some government officials", when the fucking government official in question happens to be the God damn President of Iran. You dumb shit.
It's funny that you think you have the right to go around insulting people for their supposed stupidity when you don't even understand how the power structure works in Iran. Ahmadinejad is the president of Iran, which does not hold the same power as 'president' would in, say, the US. Even if he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' (which is taken out of context btw), he would have a seriously difficult time ever starting even a notion of such, and not just because Israel's military is many times more powerful.
Basically, he's not the top dog of Iran, 'dumb shit'. Google 'supreme leader of iran' or something - enlighten yourself.
instead of seeing this from the distant perspective of a huntington, look at the actual conflict and concrete incidents. if you think israel is a good generalizing point for "western civilization," instead of being relevant for its historical situation, i have news for ya.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
On December 31 2008 12:53 oneofthem wrote: instead of seeing this from the distant perspective of a huntington, look at the actual conflict and concrete incidents. if you think israel is a good generalizing point for "western civilization," instead of being relevant for its historical situation, i have news for ya.
when do you NOT have some annoying ideological nose to thumb at me. if you think my post was an attempt to defend huntington's theory and not an attempt to say "QUIT BLAMING PEOPLE U DUMASSES, AND MAYBE THEN WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM", i have news for ya.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
Generally speaking you are probably right, but when the zionist began there migration to palestine they never really took into account the impact on the local population until there were already established resentments. What the zionist did in one sense was brilliant, but it was also to reactionary(mainly to Russian pogroms). Prior to the zionist migration, jews and arabs lived together in palestine without conflict. Resentment against the zionist jews began as there population grew and organization gave them a lot of influence, and it was obvious that there agenda did not take into account the local arab population. Unfortunetly I am not the greatest writer, but read A history of Israel and One Palestine, Complete for a good history on the developement Israel.
But you don't disagree that the Jews should have their own state. What you are driving at is how. But it is already done now. We need to deal with the fact that Israel exists and that it even should exist. It may have been by war or under foreign yoke; that's how national boundaries have often been drawn. We could delve into the inequities of any sovereign nation's history and forge make policies based on that, but we don't.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
We are talking about planet earth correct? Cause the humans here have been doing that shit for ages.
Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
Locke... so Iran has a nuclear program? Since when is it ok to not have a nuclear program? Since when is it ok for Israel and other Western countries to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran and anyone else who has the capacity to do it? Not every fuckhead who CAN make nuclear weapons WILL, and not everyone who makes them will use them.
If you think Iran is building nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map you are full of shit for several reasons:
1) Ahmadinejad doesn't have all the power, and those who do have the power to actually order something like a nuclear attack have more sense than to actually do it.
2) It would MAKE NO SENSE for Iran to nuke Israel. Do you have any idea wtf would happen to Iran if they did? Iran would be attacked by every single country on earth and pretty much be decimated. Iran would NEVER risk its entire existence by trying to actually nuke Israel.
3) The only reason they MIGHT (we're not even certain they will get nuclear weapons) get nuclear weapons would be for deterrence purposes... they won't be created to be put into use.
4) Even an Iranian invasion of Israel would probably result in the same consequences as I said before, so they wouldn't do it.
5) If Iran nuked Israel, they would fire a nuke right back, and Iran can't counter that, so they wouldn't risk nuclear warfare with Israel because that would lead to their own destruction
6) Iran is more interested in consolidating its power and building alliances / relationships with other Shi'a movements throughout the Middle East rather than outright destroying Israel
--
Basically your whole viewpoint is insanely jaded and so one sided it's unbelievable (I'm referring to Locke).
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
We are talking about planet earth correct? Cause the humans here have been doing that shit for ages.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
Congratulations on looking like the biggest retard ever, what Xeris said isnt stupid, you are stupid GTFO
Fuck you, he said that you can't prove intent by the words of "some government officials", when the fucking government official in question happens to be the God damn President of Iran. You dumb shit.
Keep posting like that and you wont last to long in here, go read history and go read politics and LEARN how Iran's Government is run, then you can come here and talk shit to Xeris (who knows better than most of us here seeing he is from there), and me, who actually likes to get informed before talking... Grow up.
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
Locke... so Iran has a nuclear program? Since when is it ok to not have a nuclear program? Since when is it ok for Israel and other Western countries to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran and anyone else who has the capacity to do it? Not every fuckhead who CAN make nuclear weapons WILL, and not everyone who makes them will use them.
If you think Iran is building nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map you are full of shit for several reasons:
1) Ahmadinejad doesn't have all the power, and those who do have the power to actually order something like a nuclear attack have more sense than to actually do it.
2) It would MAKE NO SENSE for Iran to nuke Israel. Do you have any idea wtf would happen to Iran if they did? Iran would be attacked by every single country on earth and pretty much be decimated. Iran would NEVER risk its entire existence by trying to actually nuke Israel.
3) The only reason they MIGHT (we're not even certain they will get nuclear weapons) get nuclear weapons would be for deterrence purposes... they won't be created to be put into use.
4) Even an Iranian invasion of Israel would probably result in the same consequences as I said before, so they wouldn't do it.
5) If Iran nuked Israel, they would fire a nuke right back, and Iran can't counter that, so they wouldn't risk nuclear warfare with Israel because that would lead to their own destruction
6) Iran is more interested in consolidating its power and building alliances / relationships with other Shi'a movements throughout the Middle East rather than outright destroying Israel
--
Basically your whole viewpoint is insanely jaded and so one sided it's unbelievable (I'm referring to Locke).
Xeris you're right about Iran probably not directly attacking Israel. It would indeed be suicide for Iran, but no one is saying they're gonna just start launching missiles strapped with nuclear warheads and western allies. However, if Iran did develop a nuclear weapon it would GREATLY increase the chances of said weapon being smuggled into other countries, or provided by Iran to terrorist organizations. Imagine an organization like Hezbollah with their hands on a nuclear weapon? After all the shit thats gone down between them and Israel, i really don't see a reason why they would hesitate to use it. Thats just one example out of the many possible scenarios.
With that being said, i'd also like to add that i'm saddened by Israel's response to the situation. You don't stop rocket attacks by bombing Gaza, if anything you fuel them. Rocket attacks have increased since Israel began its airstrikes and I don't think diplomacy was pressed enough.
1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
i was just about to say that, however as i had it understood, the translation meant something along the lines of "Israel should not be on the map of the world." Meaning the state of Israel should not be recognized.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
Generally speaking you are probably right, but when the zionist began there migration to palestine they never really took into account the impact on the local population until there were already established resentments. What the zionist did in one sense was brilliant, but it was also to reactionary(mainly to Russian pogroms). Prior to the zionist migration, jews and arabs lived together in palestine without conflict. Resentment against the zionist jews began as there population grew and organization gave them a lot of influence, and it was obvious that there agenda did not take into account the local arab population. Unfortunetly I am not the greatest writer, but read A history of Israel and One Palestine, Complete for a good history on the developement Israel.
But you don't disagree that the Jews should have their own state. What you are driving at is how. But it is already done now. We need to deal with the fact that Israel exists and that it even should exist. It may have been by war or under foreign yoke; that's how national boundaries have often been drawn. We could delve into the inequities of any sovereign nation's history and forge make policies based on that, but we don't.
I said having a Jewish state would be a solution. Non-native populations are always vulnerable to discrimination and without a state Jews are perpetually non-native. That doesn't necessarily mean they should have there own state in the sense that it is a right. The "how" in this case is not relevant to the conflict. The official establishment of the state is done, but non of the pre-state issues have been resolved and have only become significantly more complex. People often talk about the conflict as if it started 2000 years ago, or in 1948, or 1967, or any other date convenient for argument. Realistically the conflict started 100 years ago as the Zionist began supporting organized immigration into Palestine. The Zionist very effectively set up social organizations within Palestine, had an aggressive propaganda campaign, and were able to funnel lots of money from the diaspora for support. They operated on romantic notions of how laboring the land gets you closer to god and changed the agricultural landscape. They created a safe haven for thousands of oppressed Jews, but were to caught up in there own agenda to realize the impact they were having on the local population. The Arab Palestinians saw the rise of Jewish influence through simple demographics and propaganda, and began to see how the Zionist vision did not have a place for them. This is what created the cultural tension, and the tension was fed by the ambiguous dual support of the British mandate. This information certainly does not provide a solution for the current conflict, and the conflict has become significantly more complex, but I think it should change ones perspective on why there is a conflict in the first place.
Doesn't it strike anyone as a little more than coincidental that this whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing is beginning right after the whole Cold War thing ends? Why does there always have to be a bad guy? Why has every civilization in history had a bad guy? It helps to get the people behind the leaders' agenda if the people are afraid.
i really dont think there should actually be a post about 350 ppl dying... this is sad n only cause a shitstorm of flaming n posts. i would say it gets important when either EU or US makes a move about the situation, which wont be for a long time. (lame duck, EU does nothing) im sure as fuck that obama isn't going to do shit about this, so this will end the way it ends, w/e. jews are pretty rich n powerful, who knows they might even win, its like watching a tvp on bluestorm n the jews jus reaver dropped.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
Exactly.
--
HeavenS , do you really think Iranian nuclear weapons would be smuggled to terrorist groups? First of all:
1) Iran wouldn't have enough nuclear weapons to afford to smuggle off nukes to other groups. It's not like they'd give their only nuclear missile away to some scrub Hezbollah or Hamas group.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
3) That's still a stupid reason... if some terrorist group nuked anyone where the fuck would they have gotten the nuke from? It's not like nuclear weapons are just floating around, lol. Everyone would know that it came from Iran, and IRAN would suffer the consequences. Iran isn't stupid.
So ya. If you think about it logically, there's about a 0.000000001% chance that an Iranian nuclear missile would get into the hands of the wrong guy.
On December 31 2008 12:53 oneofthem wrote: instead of seeing this from the distant perspective of a huntington, look at the actual conflict and concrete incidents. if you think israel is a good generalizing point for "western civilization," instead of being relevant for its historical situation, i have news for ya.
when do you NOT have some annoying ideological nose to thumb at me. if you think my post was an attempt to defend huntington's theory and not an attempt to say "QUIT BLAMING PEOPLE U DUMASSES, AND MAYBE THEN WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM", i have news for ya.
i only read this sentence of your post, and it was strong enough to discourage further reading. if you want to sound less shrill about it all, refrain from making such statements.
"Mark my words, this is a conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Arab world."
and now i've gone back and read the one after:
"Why else is there such disproportionately strong interest in this one, obscure corner of the world?"
a non sequitur.
my qualm here is not ideological at all, just basic depth of analysis. if you do not want premature characterisation of your stuff, don't write like that. your clash of civilization point is merely one of relative viewpoints in different cultural and media environments. such an observation does not a clash of civilizations make.
for the actual topic, it is easy to realize that the second both sides drop grudges, the situation would be resolved. but the two sides are not equal, one has power, the other does not. israeli control of the more fundamental facts of the situation does push them into a more responsible role. by facts of the situation i mean stuff like controlling population movements, initiative in land claims and use, control of regional economy and resources.
as long as the jewish state means practical inequality for those considered outside of the jewish state, there is no way that can be an acceptable solution there. one of the basic facts of a state, that it is exclusionary and self centered, is being highlighted here. this problem will not be resolved even if there is a palestinian state anyway. any practical inequality will be used to support perceptions of formal inequality, and cries of justice would be sounded, whether true or not.
On December 31 2008 14:04 fast ball player wrote: Doesn't it strike anyone as a little more than coincidental that this whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing is beginning right after the whole Cold War thing ends? Why does there always have to be a bad guy? Why has every civilization in history had a bad guy? It helps to get the people behind the leaders' agenda if the people are afraid.
drop the Clash of Civilizations argument shit, it's been irrelevant for the past 6 pages.
On December 31 2008 12:53 oneofthem wrote: instead of seeing this from the distant perspective of a huntington, look at the actual conflict and concrete incidents. if you think israel is a good generalizing point for "western civilization," instead of being relevant for its historical situation, i have news for ya.
when do you NOT have some annoying ideological nose to thumb at me. if you think my post was an attempt to defend huntington's theory and not an attempt to say "QUIT BLAMING PEOPLE U DUMASSES, AND MAYBE THEN WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM", i have news for ya.
i only read this sentence of your post, and it was strong enough to discourage further reading. if you want to sound less shrill about it all, refrain from making such statements.
"Mark my words, this is a conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Arab world."
and now i've gone back and read the one after:
"Why else is there such disproportionately strong interest in this one, obscure corner of the world?"
a non sequitur.
my qualm here is not ideological at all, just basic depth of analysis. if you do not want premature characterisation of your stuff, don't write like that. your clash of civilization point is merely one of relative viewpoints in different cultural and media environments. such an observation does not a clash of civilizations make.
for the actual topic, it is easy to realize that the second both sides drop grudges, the situation would be resolved. but the two sides are not equal, one has power, the other does not. israeli control of the more fundamental facts of the situation does push them into a more responsible role. by facts of the situation i mean stuff like controlling population movements, initiative in land claims and use, control of regional economy and resources.
so you didn't read the article but decided to bitch about one obscure, unrelated point. you still haven't read the article, and you're responding vaguely like you always do to a gross oversimplification which has nothing to do with the substance of what i wrote so why do you even post?
as long as the jewish state means practical inequality for those considered outside of the jewish state, there is no way that can be an acceptable solution there. one of the basic facts of a state, that it is exclusionary and self centered, is being highlighted here. this problem will not be resolved even if there is a palestinian state anyway. any practical inequality will be used to support perceptions of formal inequality, and cries of justice would be sounded, whether true or not. Last edit: 2008-12-31 14:21:27
I never endorsed a two state solution. In fact, you didn't even read the solution I proposed and how that was related to the clash of civilizations. I'd really appreciate it if before you jumped in to these threads posting like you're the world's foremost expert on the subject you'd read the fucking OP. I think you just post to disagree with people. God forbid I one day write something you agree with, you'd probably write a novel about me not being sufficiently academic in my agreement.
1.) the arab population in Israel is growing 2.) the inequality between Israel and Palestine is directly a result of Western policy. This inequality checks back any attempt at negotiation from succeeding. A political compromise is more than possible, but Israel has little incentive to make substantial concessions. Along every step of the way, it is the Palestinians that have conceded the most in negotiations between the two.
I'm on vacation and blah blah blah, but Huntington is full of shit. He doesn't know shit about the region and he certainly doesn't understand the dynamics of terrorist motivation. Not only is Huntington the political scientist of choice for Dick Cheney but also Bin Laden (or his ghost) because he frames the problem in the exact same way that they do, lending legitimacy to extremist ideology..
Gaza is especially proof that it has nothing to do with "civilizations." Not only does religion play an extremely minor role compared to the "getting fucked up" part, but you can also see that the most of the "Arab civilization" doesn't really care about Palestinians and some are probably glad they're being oppressed, the way Damascus and Tehran want the Kurds to be fucked up.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
Because everyone is stupid. His phrasing is the exact same as the phrasing used when the Shah was removed from power; neither are related to blowing shit up. Iran wants weapons because competitors in the region have them, it's cheaper than the giant standing army they have right now and it'll provide a host of other neat technologies. The only risk is that other countries will start wanting nukes, but the same case could already be made for Israel, India and Pakistan's programs. Pakistan is the only real nuclear threat because its government is nearly failed. Iran has a democracy, it should be a non-issue.
I don't have time to read this thread but my guess is Savio made some post understanding nothing about the situation in Palestine, or the circumstances in which Israel became a state.
Locke probably posted something about how Israelis are entitled to that land, even though the people that moved there were fucking Europeans and claiming land based on a 5,000 year old religious document is as fucking stupid as claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there. Then on the date that they became an official country rather than a piece of UN protected land, all their surrounding countries attacked them and then got messed up.
So for Israel their acquiring their land when it was first established as a country, did not come by bloodshed but by UN edict. Then only AFTER they were attacked, did they expand on their land.
This continues the long history Israel has of being attacked first, then counterattacking and coming out victorious because they use American equipment.
But the point is that Israel's enemies almost always are the ones who start the bloodshed. Israel is almost always the one who counterattacks and defends itself with what some might call "disproportionate" force--which is a stupid term as I have shown anyway.
Frankly taking the history of the Gaza strip and the actions taken by the active power of that country, who has sworn death to Israel more or less, I mean how do you respond to a small country constantly harassing your own? Obviously you can't let their actions go unchecked.
Frankly 2 ways to see this Highlight the uneven death count due to the fact that Israel has one of the most advanced military force in that region.
Or highlight the fact that Hamas has continued it's aggression in firing small rockets into Israel on a daily basis.
Personally i side with Israel on this part just due it's not the aggressor.
The death ratio may be unfortunate but actions cannot go unpunished.
Seriously this is as old as the 7 day war =p people attack israel israel has the best military might in the region they freaking loose you can't really sympathise with that if israel is doing nothing but countering.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there. Then on the date that they became an official country rather than a piece of UN protected land, all their surrounding countries attacked them and then got messed up.
So for Israel their acquiring their land when it was first established as a country, did not come by bloodshed but by UN edict. Then only AFTER they were attacked, did they expand on their land.
This continues the long history Israel has of being attacked first, then counterattacking and coming out victorious because they use American equipment.
But the point is that Israel's enemies almost always are the ones who start the bloodshed. Israel is almost always the one who counterattacks and defends itself with what some might call "disproportionate" force--which is a stupid term as I have shown anyway.
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with government controlled media?
From Wikipedia about Iran:
"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader."
I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants.
Its possible that you think our media is biased (in favor of Israel), because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran).
You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do.
I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor.
As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians.
Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments?
From Wikipedia about Iran:
"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader."
I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants.
You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran).
You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do.
I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor.
As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians.
Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world.
I don't buy your claim.
1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything.
2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints
3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life.
4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel.
5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often
6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it!
As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia)
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
Anyone having nukes is trouble no matter how you look at it, iran, israel... its all the same. Judging who should have nukes and who shouldn't is just retarded(hi UN). So much for equality among nations.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
The nuclear program if completed and used wisely will be the best thing they've ever done because it will given them cleaner, cheaper, and more renewable energy.
Again, a nuke given to a fundamentalist group would be a fucking terrible idea. Money alone doesn't explain it, what the fuck good is $50 billion (for example) going to do them if they are invaded by the entire world? None.
Please don't talk about the region, ESPECIALLY IRAN, if you haven't actually done research and don't know wtf you are talking about.
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments?
From Wikipedia about Iran:
"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader."
I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants.
You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran).
You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do.
I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor.
As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians.
Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world.
I don't buy your claim.
1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything.
2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints
3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life.
4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel.
5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often
6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it!
As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia)
Israel is not invading. They are just bombing at this point.
The only viable argument you could make is that perhaps the media didn't cover the attacks of Hamas on Israel because they weren't killing very many people, but now Israel's attacks are killing much more people. That might be a large part of it.
If you believe it so strongly, I want you to explain HOW the media is biased in favor is Israel. Do they downplay the destruction Israel does in Gaza? What is it?
You have read infinity books by man, women, children and animals apparently, so perhaps you could enlighten us.
I made a thread earlier about liberal bias in the media but I explain in what ways it is there and gave multiple sources as proof. Do at least what I did.
Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
Anyways, to keep this post from being totally off topic - If negotiations were to occur between Israelis and Palestinians, what would they even agree to? A ceasefire? That wouldn't be a solution in the long run because it doesn't solve their problem. Who gets Jerusalem? Shared? How to set borders/territories? Neither will be willing to change their religious/ideological beliefs, so it doesn't seem like a peaceful solution can ever be satisfactory to both sides.
I would agree with Xeris that no country would ever knowingly hand a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization it doesn't directly control. The risk is too high, in fact it is almost certain in Iran's case, that the weapon could be traced back to its original owner. Moreover, these groups are unpredictable and have a history of biting the hand that feeds it -- Pakistan and the Taliban are a good example. Their loyalties are fickle and they have their own agenda which ultimately conflict with that of any nation-state. Not even Khamanei wants an Islamic Caliphate telling him what to do, for example.
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
The problem of proliferation comes from the accumulation of many such insignificant threats. If all of a sudden there's a dozen nuclear armed middle eastern countries with radicalist sympathies, then the chances of a nuke being placed in the wrong hands increases exponentially. This scenario is much more likely to happen if Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Like with Pakistan, China, and France, it's likely they'll want to share or trade that information with allies, encouraging further proliferation.
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote: Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments?
From Wikipedia about Iran:
"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader."
I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants.
You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran).
You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do.
I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor.
As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians.
Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world.
I don't buy your claim.
1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything.
2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints
3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life.
4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel.
5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often
6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it!
As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia)
Israel is not invading. They are just bombing at this point.
The only viable argument you could make is that perhaps the media didn't cover the attacks of Hamas on Israel because they weren't killing very many people, but now Israel's attacks are killing much more people. That might be a large part of it.
If you believe it so strongly, I want you to explain HOW the media is biased in favor is Israel. Do they downplay the destruction Israel does in Gaza? What is it?
You have read infinity books by man, women, children and animals apparently, so perhaps you could enlighten us.
I made a thread earlier about liberal bias in the media but I explain in what ways it is there and gave multiple sources as proof. Do at least what I did.
Israel is just bombing, but they've stated that this is just a first phase of a larger operation, which will likely include a ground invasion, unless the violence is halted soon.
Actually, this whole Gaza situation recently has been one of the few times I've seen American media possibly portraying Israel as a bad guy. I don't have news stories about Israeli bias and stuff on hand, but I can talk a little bit about Iran because that's where my research has been most extensive.
It has been really difficult to find literature with a positive view of Iran from a domestic standpoint. For example, if you pick up a random book about Iran - I can almost guarantee that it will talk about how women are oppressed, how the population hates their repressive regime, how there is widespread dissident, how Iranians are unsatisfied with Islamicst lifestyles, etc.
It is really difficult to find literature that will say - actually, Iranians generally approve of their President, and think the government is doing a pretty good job, for example.
In fact, there have been a few polls in the past two years that have said just that. There is obviously one HUGE exception - Iranians highly have a dissatisfied view of how the government has handled the economy (Iran's economy is pretty poor right now, but it's all relative because it is still 2nd largest in the Middle East)... but otherwise in other domestic and social matters, Ahmadinejad's office has pretty favorable numbers. But again, this is not really something you'll find very much in Western media or literature.
Also, Iran is one of the most educated countries in the region, with more females going to University's, 75% of all web traffic in the Middle East is from Iran, etc etc... but these things are difficult to find in Western media.
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
...So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad.
YES, I agree with you on this point - this is the real issue. HOWEVER, we are talking about Iran. The Iranian government is quite stable, I can assure you. So, a nuclear Iran is "bad", but their government is stable... maybe not AS stable as Israel for example, but it is no less bad than really any other country in the region that already has nuclear weapons.
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
Iran is not a net importer of oil what are you smoking? Just to make sure I didn't pull a van winkle and wake up in an altered dimension I looked it on the CIA world factbook:
If Iran is a net exporter, and it is, then there is no reason for it to want to invest in nuclear power unless it's to help develop weapons. It doesn't get to export as much, but developing nuclear power is in itself an extremely costly endeavour. The reason the US or net importing nations has an interest in developing nuclear power is more strategic than economic. First, they know how to and have a lot more experience with them. Second, it allows them to reduce dependence on imports, enhancing their soft power. Down the road, it could become a profitable investment for Iran, but for now, its money could be spent on better things than nuclear weapons.
The fact is, Iran exports nothing but oil today. Western sanctions have all but obliterated its export sector. These sanctions don't work for oil because demand is high in places like China. Iran could greatly improve its own economy if it were to comply with western demands. It doesn't do so for a couple of geopolitical reasons: a.) Nuclear power enhances its status in the region. Iran would very much like to be a leader in the Middle East. b.) Nuclear power keeps the US from executing, erm, "regime change."
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I was commenting on the similarity of the two numbers entered, presumably at random, to lighten up the thread Wasn't questioning what you've read
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
...So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad.
YES, I agree with you on this point - this is the real issue. HOWEVER, we are talking about Iran. The Iranian government is quite stable, I can assure you. So, a nuclear Iran is "bad", but their government is stable... maybe not AS stable as Israel for example, but it is no less bad than really any other country in the region that already has nuclear weapons.
Not with the price of oil dropping like it is it won't be.
edit: this is fun. i'm finally starting to develop interest in what has been until now a thread full of moronic argumentation. let's keep talking about nukes, that's always real fun.
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I was commenting on the similarity of the two numbers entered, presumably at random, to lighten up the thread Wasn't questioning what you've read
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
Iran is not a net importer of oil what are you smoking? Just to make sure I didn't pull a van winkle and wake up in an altered dimension I looked it on the CIA world factbook:
If Iran is a net exporter, and it is, then there is no reason for it to want to invest in nuclear power unless it's to help develop weapons. It doesn't get to export as much, but developing nuclear power is in itself an extremely costly endeavour. The reason the US or net importing nations has an interest in developing nuclear power is more strategic than economic. First, they know how to and have a lot more experience with them. Second, it allows them to reduce dependence on imports, enhancing their soft power. Down the road, it could become a profitable investment for Iran, but for now, its money could be spent on better things than nuclear weapons.
The fact is, Iran exports nothing but oil today. Western sanctions have all but obliterated its export sector. These sanctions don't work for oil because demand is high in places like China. Iran could greatly improve its own economy if it were to comply with western demands. It doesn't do so for a couple of geopolitical reasons: a.) Nuclear power enhances its status in the region. Iran would very much like to be a leader in the Middle East. b.) Nuclear power keeps the US from executing, erm, "regime change."
sorry, I mis-said... I was stating that Iran's oil production is a lot lower than it should, I.E, they don't even produce enough oil after exports for their own domestic use.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
The nuclear program if completed and used wisely will be the best thing they've ever done because it will given them cleaner, cheaper, and more renewable energy.
Again, a nuke given to a fundamentalist group would be a fucking terrible idea. Money alone doesn't explain it, what the fuck good is $50 billion (for example) going to do them if they are invaded by the entire world? None.
Please don't talk about the region, ESPECIALLY IRAN, if you haven't actually done research and don't know wtf you are talking about.
Xeris, you need to get some economic terms under your belt to continue. A "net importer" of oil would mean that it imports MORE oil than it exports. That is not the case. They do spend money on fuel imports but there is simply no way that they are a "net importer of oil".
In my post, I only mentioned that they have a ton of oil which is true. You are correct in saying that their refining capacity is limited, but do you really think it is cheaper to spend decades researching nuclear energy, starting from scratch than it would be to build a few more refineries? That would be an amazing thing to think.
As for the threat that they would be blamed for a nuclear attack done by a terrorist organization, that is probably true. If it could be proved that it was them and not a lost nuke from Russia due to corruption or Pakistan, then it would be a problem for them. It probably would be anyway, but not nearly the problem that launching a nuke from their own territory would present.
Its still true that a nuclear Iran certainly raises the chances of a terrorist organization getting their hands on one.
The fact that they are spending all this money to build nuclear energy which they don't have instead of refineries for oil which they DO have is evidence that this is not an economically motivated decision.
On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote: 1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new.
2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
Iran is not a net importer of oil what are you smoking? Just to make sure I didn't pull a van winkle and wake up in an altered dimension I looked it on the CIA world factbook:
If Iran is a net exporter, and it is, then there is no reason for it to want to invest in nuclear power unless it's to help develop weapons. It doesn't get to export as much, but developing nuclear power is in itself an extremely costly endeavour. The reason the US or net importing nations has an interest in developing nuclear power is more strategic than economic. First, they know how to and have a lot more experience with them. Second, it allows them to reduce dependence on imports, enhancing their soft power. Down the road, it could become a profitable investment for Iran, but for now, its money could be spent on better things than nuclear weapons.
The fact is, Iran exports nothing but oil today. Western sanctions have all but obliterated its export sector. These sanctions don't work for oil because demand is high in places like China. Iran could greatly improve its own economy if it were to comply with western demands. It doesn't do so for a couple of geopolitical reasons: a.) Nuclear power enhances its status in the region. Iran would very much like to be a leader in the Middle East. b.) Nuclear power keeps the US from executing, erm, "regime change."
sorry, I mis-said... I was stating that Iran's oil production is a lot lower than it should, I.E, they don't even produce enough oil after exports for their own domestic use.
PS. CIA factbook is not entirely accurate.
It is accurate within 2 million barrels per day i assure you
Xeris, Iran is a dictatorship run by Muslim extremists who directly finance and train our biggest recent enemies Hamas and Hizbollah. That's a good enough reason to opposing them getting nuclear.
BTW Israel is one of the only countries were a single nuclear hit can destroy the entire country - the area of Tel Aviv is basically the only real center in Israel thus destroying it means virtually destroying Israel. I am not saying the Iranians will just go ahead and bomb us but we should be very worried of a nuclear Iran and act accordingly.
Just to clear up some misconceptions Kakylia is in the center of Israel close to Raanana and Tel Aviv, Bet Lehem is near Jerusalem in the East, Nebulous is in Samaria a bit to the North and Gaza is completely in the south of Israel (though Eilat is much more to the South). All of them are considered Palestinian cities. Any future "Palestinian State" with territorial continuity through those places would have to cut Israel's territorial continuity to pieces and would virtually span most of Israel. That is one of the reasons the 2 states idea is never gonna work.
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I apologise for my ignorance earlier.. But may I ask you, in your country, do you really get stoned to death for adultery or homosexuality? In that case are you able to surf porn sites? If porn sites are restricted, then how are you able to read objective articles on the internet for other things, for example, articles that are pro-Israel?
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know how liberal/totalitarian the legal system is in your country, cyber-laws or otherwise.
By the way Locke, I genuinely hope you would give this article a read: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm - gives you a good background behind the conflict.
They still do stoning in Iran - I don't live there right now, I'm not sure if you can access porn on the internet. Iran has the highest internet usage in the region, so I'm assuming they have access to porn sites.
I started quoting that article and correcting the lies one after the other I soon found out the amount of lies and fabrications in it reaches absurd proportions.
Ironically the quote he puts at the top of the article describes what he wrote perfectly.
"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over." -- Adolf Hitler
Gah, Savio has reared his closed-minded and propaganda-filled head. Oh the joy.
It's nothing short of amazing that people actually believe Iran with a nuke is somehow any worse than Bush with a nuke. Or Pakistan, Israel, and India for that matter - all of which (unlike Iran) are not members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It reeks of self-righteous exceptionalism in here, and the culprit is, unsurprisingly, the only country to actually have used a nuclear weapon.
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I apologise for my ignorance earlier.. But may I ask you, in your country, do you really get stoned to death for adultery or homosexuality? In that case are you able to surf porn sites? If porn sites are restricted, then how are you able to read objective articles on the internet for other things, for example, articles that are pro-Israel?
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know how liberal/totalitarian the legal system is in your country, cyber-laws or otherwise.
By the way Locke, I genuinely hope you would give this article a read: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm - gives you a good background behind the conflict.
did he just use porn as an indicator of objective articles about society?? hahaha, maybe thats the case, but thats fucking funny as hell if you need to judge a country by it level of censorship on adult information.
On December 31 2008 18:08 QibingZero wrote: Gah, Savio has reared his closed-minded and propaganda-filled head. Oh the joy.
It's nothing short of amazing that people actually believe Iran with a nuke is somehow any worse than Bush with a nuke. Or Pakistan, Israel, and India for that matter - all of which (unlike Iran) are not members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It reeks of self-righteous exceptionalism in here, and the culprit is, unsurprisingly, the only country to actually have used a nuclear weapon.
thanks for totally ignoring my post which clearly articulates why nuclear proliferation is a real threat.
On December 31 2008 15:58 ahrara_ wrote: I would agree with Xeris that no country would ever knowingly hand a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization it doesn't directly control. The risk is too high, in fact it is almost certain in Iran's case, that the weapon could be traced back to its original owner. Moreover, these groups are unpredictable and have a history of biting the hand that feeds it -- Pakistan and the Taliban are a good example. Their loyalties are fickle and they have their own agenda which ultimately conflict with that of any nation-state. Not even Khamanei wants an Islamic Caliphate telling him what to do, for example.
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
The problem of proliferation comes from the accumulation of many such insignificant threats. If all of a sudden there's a dozen nuclear armed middle eastern countries with radicalist sympathies, then the chances of a nuke being placed in the wrong hands increases exponentially. This scenario is much more likely to happen if Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Like with Pakistan, China, and France, it's likely they'll want to share or trade that information with allies, encouraging further proliferation.
first, his post was directed somewhere else, not towards your post, so ur post does not and would not derive from his argument that the people constantly worried about nuclear proliferation are the only ones to have used nuclear arms.
concerning political instability as a catalyst that actually makes nuclear proliferation dangerous because radical terrorist groups would get a hold of the nuclear technology, that is false from both historical aspect and pragmatic aspect.
historically, we have seen the nuclear weapon as the key issue several times, key points in WWII and the cold war. in both cases, it was a weapon of war, a military tactic, that requires economic backing and outright full-scale programs. why is this different from terrorist weapons? it is a military strategy on a level that terrorist are unable to attain. terrorist groups constantly use tactics that attack the civilian population at the cheapest cost: bombings, gunned attacks, hijacks.
pragmatically, a terrorist group cannot maintain such a weapon or even realistically launch it. unlike science fiction, a nuclear weapon is not constantly placed inside a silo that will open any second, with probably the exception of the U.S. they are not linked up to a red button that the terrorist leader can press once and launch. they are unstable nuclear arms that require scientific knowledge and a team of well trained men to manage, both of which requires a stable and powerful economic backing government.
lastly, the very fact that the first thing that radical power do when they come to power is nuke all their enemies, who happen to have nukes too, is asinine. the first order of business, no matter what world country you inspect, for any power that comes to power is securing its power. and it's sure as hell not going to do that by nuking its foreign enemies.
On December 31 2008 18:08 QibingZero wrote: It reeks of self-righteous exceptionalism in here, and the culprit is, unsurprisingly, the only country to actually have used a nuclear weapon.
This post really nails why even Americans hate their own foreign policies at times.
On December 31 2008 19:10 Creationism wrote: first, his post was directed somewhere else, not towards your post, so ur post does not and would not derive from his argument that the people constantly worried about nuclear proliferation are the only ones to have used nuclear arms.
concerning political instability as a catalyst that actually makes nuclear proliferation dangerous because radical terrorist groups would get a hold of the nuclear technology, that is false from both historical aspect and pragmatic aspect.
historically, we have seen the nuclear weapon as the key issue several times, key points in WWII and the cold war. in both cases, it was a weapon of war, a military tactic, that requires economic backing and outright full-scale programs. why is this different from terrorist weapons? it is a military strategy on a level that terrorist are unable to attain. terrorist groups constantly use tactics that attack the civilian population at the cheapest cost: bombings, gunned attacks, hijacks.
pragmatically, a terrorist group cannot maintain such a weapon or even realistically launch it. unlike science fiction, a nuclear weapon is not constantly placed inside a silo that will open any second, with probably the exception of the U.S. they are not linked up to a red button that the terrorist leader can press once and launch. they are unstable nuclear arms that require scientific knowledge and a team of well trained men to manage, both of which requires a stable and powerful economic backing government.
lastly, the very fact that the first thing that radical power do when they come to power is nuke all their enemies, who happen to have nukes too, is asinine. the first order of business, no matter what world country you inspect, for any power that comes to power is securing its power. and it's sure as hell not going to do that by nuking its foreign enemies.
if i had your intelligence and reading comprehension i wouldn't know what to do with myself
Both sides are retarded. Anyone who dies and lets his family die (or worse) for something as fake as a nation (borders people drew on maps because they like to own stuff) is stupid and / or brain washed. I'm not saying Israeli or Palestine civilians are to blame but when two entire populations are hell bent on living in a war zone then something is very very wrong. The ones with power need to take responsibility for this and do something about it.
The countries down there need to get peace for 50 or so years so they can start educating people to break out of ignorance. It's fucking sick when an entire people breed their children as warriors because there is no other way of living for them.
On December 31 2008 19:59 StarBrift wrote: Both sides are retarded. Anyone who dies and lets his family die (or worse) for something as fake as a nation (borders people drew on maps because they like to own stuff) is stupid and / or brain washed. I'm not saying Israeli or Palestine civilians are to blame but when two entire populations are hell bent on living in a war zone then something is very very wrong. The ones with power need to take responsibility for this and do something about it.
The countries down there need to get peace for 50 or so years so they can start educating people to break out of ignorance. It's fucking sick when an entire people breed their children as warriors because there is no other way of living for them.
Imagine your city in Sweden being bombarded almost every day for 8 years. Imagine your children having 15 seconds to run in terror and find shelter before the rockets hit, your city becomes a ghost town the people are terrorized and every day a different house explodes.
This has been the reality in Sderot and the Negev in the past years it is gradually coming to Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beer Sheva.
Israel have every justification to destroy the people who do that to us with the open intention of destroying Israel.
Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there
That is not quite true. The Jews were moving into Palestine prior to WWII. And during WWII they were actually "blowing people away with guns". They were engaging in terrorist attacks against the British government in order to manipulate them into giving them the land. Ironically, the arabs began to use terrost attacks against the British as well becuase the British were responding to the Jewish pressure.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
They tolerate their own population for the sake of stability, but none of the countries in that area mind what Turkey does to its Kurds or the Kurds in N. Iraq, except Iraq itself because of Talabani. Look at what Iran did during the post Gulf War exodus. There is no unity between Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Syria.
And Locke, Iran is a fucking democracy. Theocratic democracy? Oh, just like Israel. Iran is training our biggest enemies? Are you fucking stupid? Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI/Pakistani militants are our biggest enemies. Not only are those all Sunni groups, but Iran has been at odds with Afghanistan and Palestine for hundreds of years. Iran could be one of our best allies in the region.
Savio, you know absolutely nothing about the history of Israelis. If you guys aren't willing to look at someone controversial like Finkelstein, at least look at a preeminent Israeli scholar like Benny Morris; at least he's criticized from both sides. Or why not look up the British take on Israelis at the time. They did not peacefully claim the land that the UN gave them, they were terrorists in the region for several decades before WWII.
Nuclear Iran is fine. It's a rational actor, and you don't just sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. This isn't fucking 24. You need tons of infrastructure to create and use them, which means states are the only nuclear threat. Instead of worrying about stable Iran's 1 nuclear weapon, you people should be worrying about crumbling Pakistan's 200 nuclear weapons or India's 500 nuclear weapons. Both have a greater chance of ending up in the hands of extremists.
Besides, the ISI have already sold the blueprints for a nuclear weapon to several countries plus physics is physics, you can't keep this stuff a secret. Hell, if you really want to worry about being attacked, maybe we should start getting rid of chlorine and fertilizer and bug spray, and the freight trains that are all extremely vulnerable carrying this stuff across the country.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
They tolerate their own population for the sake of stability, but none of the countries in that area mind what Turkey does to its Kurds or the Kurds in N. Iraq, except Iraq itself because of Talabani. Look at what Iran did during the post Gulf War exodus. There is no unity between Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Syria.
And Locke, Iran is a fucking democracy. Theocratic democracy? Oh, just like Israel.
Savio, you know absolutely nothing about the history of Israelis. If you guys aren't willing to look at someone controversial like Finkelstein, at least look at a preeminent Israeli scholar like Benny Morris; at least he's criticized from both sides. Or why not look up the British take on Israelis at the time. They did not peacefully claim the land that the UN gave them, they were terrorists in the region for several decades before WWII.
Um, Israel is scarcely theocratic.
As for Zionist terrorism, it was wrong of course, which has nothing to do with modern Israel's right to respond to terrorism directed against them. The British did try to take action against terrorists, as was proper.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
They tolerate their own population for the sake of stability, but none of the countries in that area mind what Turkey does to its Kurds or the Kurds in N. Iraq, except Iraq itself because of Talabani. Look at what Iran did during the post Gulf War exodus. There is no unity between Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Syria.
And Locke, Iran is a fucking democracy. Theocratic democracy? Oh, just like Israel.
Savio, you know absolutely nothing about the history of Israelis. If you guys aren't willing to look at someone controversial like Finkelstein, at least look at a preeminent Israeli scholar like Benny Morris; at least he's criticized from both sides. Or why not look up the British take on Israelis at the time. They did not peacefully claim the land that the UN gave them, they were terrorists in the region for several decades before WWII.
Um, Israel is scarcely theocratic.
How much do you actually know about Iranian politics? It's corrupt, but largely secular.
As for Zionist terrorism, it was wrong of course, which has nothing to do with modern Israel's right to respond to terrorism directed against them. The British did try to take action against terrorists, as was proper.
It matters because Hamas is going after the ever-encroaching territories, which people like Locke claim Israel is entitled to because of their history, when really they were just as murderous as anyone else.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
They tolerate their own population for the sake of stability, but none of the countries in that area mind what Turkey does to its Kurds or the Kurds in N. Iraq, except Iraq itself because of Talabani. Look at what Iran did during the post Gulf War exodus. There is no unity between Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Syria.
And Locke, Iran is a fucking democracy. Theocratic democracy? Oh, just like Israel.
Savio, you know absolutely nothing about the history of Israelis. If you guys aren't willing to look at someone controversial like Finkelstein, at least look at a preeminent Israeli scholar like Benny Morris; at least he's criticized from both sides. Or why not look up the British take on Israelis at the time. They did not peacefully claim the land that the UN gave them, they were terrorists in the region for several decades before WWII.
Jibba let's keep some level of discussion, Iran isn't a democracy it is ruled by a Supreme Leader which isn't elected and is far more powerful than the "elected" president which has to be approved by the Leader before he can even run. And Iran political system is SO completely different from Israel that your comparison is simply ridiculous.
"More powerful than the president of Iran, the (Supreme) Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[4]"
Yes Jibba, we fought hard to create Israel and we are fighting to defend it from enemies who seek to destroy it. If we depended just on the UN "giving" us a country we would have no country. There is just one tiny country for Jews and it is Israel there are 57 for Muslims.
Iran doesn't want Kurds to be fucked up. Iran's Kurdish population is the most well off / satisfied of all the Kurdish minorities throughout the Middle East. Iran treats the Kurds relatively well (although they are certainly not equal), and Kurds in Iran are mostly happy.
They tolerate their own population for the sake of stability, but none of the countries in that area mind what Turkey does to its Kurds or the Kurds in N. Iraq, except Iraq itself because of Talabani. Look at what Iran did during the post Gulf War exodus. There is no unity between Kurds and Turkey/Iran/Syria.
And Locke, Iran is a fucking democracy. Theocratic democracy? Oh, just like Israel.
Savio, you know absolutely nothing about the history of Israelis. If you guys aren't willing to look at someone controversial like Finkelstein, at least look at a preeminent Israeli scholar like Benny Morris; at least he's criticized from both sides. Or why not look up the British take on Israelis at the time. They did not peacefully claim the land that the UN gave them, they were terrorists in the region for several decades before WWII.
Um, Israel is scarcely theocratic.
How much do you actually know about Iranian politics? It's corrupt, but largely secular.
As for Zionist terrorism, it was wrong of course, which has nothing to do with modern Israel's right to respond to terrorism directed against them. The British did try to take action against terrorists, as was proper.
It matters because Hamas is going after the ever-encroaching territories, which people like Locke claim Israel is entitled to because of their history, when really they were just as murderous as anyone else.
First of all if you listen to Hamas (or even read their maps) they are after the entire land of Israel NOT 1967 borders. Besides the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Front) was formed in 1964, before the war - when the arab countries had all Judea including large part of Jerusalem, Samaria, Gaza and Ramat Hagolan. They wanted the rest of Israel, Tel Aviv Haifa and Jerusalem, not to "return to 1967".
BTW to return to 1967 borders means giving the land not to "Palestines" cause they never ruled any of these lands but to Jordan, Syria and Egypt who held these areas. Those countries have no rights to these parts of Israel and there is no reason why we should give them up.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
This is exactly what I think too. It's such a joke that Isreal gets attacked by home-made pipe bombs filled with scrap metal and retaliate with air strikes.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
This is exactly what I think too. It's such a joke that Isreal gets attacked by home-made pipe bombs filled with scrap metal and retaliate with air strikes.
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote: First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
To be honest I think this is just a flaunting of Israeli power - they feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want in the Middle East because they have powerful allies (United States, for example) and not suffer any consequences. Think the United Nations or any major group is going to really stand up AGAINST Israel? Nobody but Iran has the balls to do it. Israel is going to carry out this war, cause a fuckton of damage, then retreat back into Israel where they will not feel any repercussions and just continue as they have.
It's pretty bullshit the position that Israel is in, being like the little kid on the block with a big badass brother so nobody can mess with them. Technically what they are doing is illegal according to international law, but nobody's going to do anything about it.
This is exactly what I think too. It's such a joke that Isreal gets attacked by home-made pipe bombs filled with scrap metal and retaliate with air strikes.
You're dumb. And anybody who thinks like this is dumb.
If your home and community were under constant threat from rocket attacks and your family in constant, visible, explosive danger, you'd feel the same way. No responsible government would ignore such a threat. To blame Israel for its "disproportionate" response is to blame human nature. Nobody wants rockets exploding in their back yard, and if you were in that position, or if the palestinians were in Israel's position, you'd want your government to do the same.
Which is not an excuse for Israel's actions. Murder is condemnable in all instances, but to talk as if Israel's government had a rational choice besides military action is delusional. For the last time, you don't solve conflicts by pointing fingers. You do it by acknowledging equal culpability from every actor.
Does anyone else here think the modern state of Israel was one of the worst ideas ever?
Lets think about this, lets take a group of people (jews) who have been screwed multiple times throughout history and put them in a location where they're practically surrounded by some of the craziest religous groups in modern times. How was the UN convinced this was a good idea?
On December 31 2008 17:59 Locke. wrote: I started quoting that article and correcting the lies one after the other I soon found out the amount of lies and fabrications in it reaches absurd proportions.
Ironically the quote he puts at the top of the article describes what he wrote perfectly.
"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over." -- Adolf Hitler
Wow, brilliant fucking rebuttal there. I mean, nevermind actually saying what the article lied about or providing any substance to back up your opinion of why it was full of lies or anything, just say "it was full of lies and absurd" and then that's your argument. So are you saying the article lied because it apportions blame to the Zionists as to how Israel was initially set up or what, at least give a reason as to why you disagree. Are you saying it's a lie that Israel never committed any terrorists acts to begin with.
In a joint operation called "Operation Unity," the three Zionist terrorist gangs, the Haganah, the Irgun and the Stern Gang surrounded the village at 4:30 AM, and then went in, raping and killing as they went, looting valuables and destroying property. The slaughter went on for two days. On the second day, a Red Cross volunteer happened onto the scene, and later described what the Zionist terrorists told him was "mopping up." He indicated that the "mopping up was being done with knives, machine guns and grenades." In a previously secret British report, quoted at "Deir Yassin Remembered," (a web site operated by an international group of scholars, half of whom are Jewish or Jewish Israelis), "many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman... who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings."
Reports by some of the survivors:
Mr. Fahimi Zeidan, 12: "The Jews ordered all our family to line up against the wall and they started shooting us. I was hit in the side, but most of us children were saved because we hid behind our parents. The bullets hit my sister Kadri [age four] in the head, my sister Sameh [age eight] in the cheek, my brother Mohammed [age seven] in the chest. But all the others with us against the wall were killed: my father, my mother, my grandfather and grandmother, my uncles and aunts and some of their children."
Ms. Haleem Eid, 30: "A man [shot] a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher's knife."
Ms. Naaneh Khalil, 16, saw a man: "take a kind of sword and slash my neighbor Jamil Hish from head to toe then do the same thing on the steps to my house to my cousin Fathi."
Ms. Safiyeh Attiyah, 41: "I screamed but around me other women were being raped too. Some of the men were so anxious to get our earrings they ripped our ears to pull them off faster."
Mr. Mohamed Jaber, student, "The Jews [broke] in, [drove] everybody outside, put them against the wall and shot them. One of the women was carrying a three month old baby."
Mr. Abu Mahmud 70: "They took about 40 prisoners from the village. But after the battle was over, they took them to the quarry where they shot them dead and threw their bodies in the quarry. After they [the terrorists] removed their [the terrorists'] dead and wounded [from the village], they took the prisoners and killed them. They took the elderly prisoners, women and men and took them out of the village, yet they killed the youths."(DYR)
There are reports that both the British commander in the area and the Jewish Agency both knew what was happening, but no one intervened to stop it.
The Hitler quote was from the article itself, I didn't bring it up! I would never even think to put a quote of Adolf Hitler as a motto to my essay like this guy did, fairly twisted if you ask me. It's just that ironically the quote he chose describes the rest of his essay. I am not surprised he chose a Hitler motto as an introduction to his twisted article.
"To that end, I have elected to leave out the facts as everyone already assumes them to be," - He says on his own accord that he simply ignores facts and rights what he wants instead.
I still refuse to quote this article and falsify the enormous amount of fabrications, half truths and downright lies in it (along with occasional well known facts). Just the same as I wouldn't quote "The Protocols of Zion's Elders" or "Mein Kampf" and falsify what they write if you brought that up.
some israelis seem to understand the situation as a mere police action on a rowdy neighborhood, only on steroids. they see the palestinians as ultraviolent maniacs, or religious fanatics, or behaving in a simplistic model of hateful conflict. take some time and look at how a boy grows up to hate israel, part of it is certainly due to the ideology, but things like living besides the glitter of modernity without being able to partake in it are surely frustrating.
The truth is that having a "Palestinian State" in Israel means the destruction of Israel, it will never be a peaceful solution. Both practically and ideologically it will never work and we are seeing it clearer and clearer every day that passes by. The Palestinian Liberation Front was made before 1967 with the purpose of destroying Israel and joining a large Pan-Arabian state. It is not about "Palestinian" identity, it is about Arab identity. When the Arabs in Israel lived under Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian "occupation" they didn't ask any of them for independence.
They want Israel to be an Arab country with no Jews and we want a Jewish country with a faithful Arab minority. Unfortunately our treacherous leadership has accepted the madness of the Palestinian idea and now either a war or the slow destruction of Israel is inevitable.
The only way there will ever be something similar to peace around Israel is if Israel will control all of its land, the arabs who aren't loyal to our country will be asked to live in one of the 57 muslim countries or where ever they wish (getting financial help from Israel to leave) and those who do accept Israel can live in it as a minority with complete human rights (far more than they receive in any Arab country).
Of course currently that's a far dream, the Oslo process and the creation of the murderous Hamastan along with the terrorist Fatah will make it very hard to reach such a status. But that is the only way there will be quiet in Israel in the long run.
On January 01 2009 20:35 Locke. wrote: The Hitler quote was from the article itself, I didn't bring it up! I would never even think to put a quote of Adolf Hitler as a motto to my essay like this guy did, fairly twisted if you ask me. It's just that ironically the quote he chose describes the rest of his essay. I am not surprised he chose a Hitler motto as an introduction to his twisted article.
"To that end, I have elected to leave out the facts as everyone already assumes them to be," - He says on his own accord that he simply ignores facts and rights what he wants instead.
I still refuse to quote this article and falsify the enormous amount of fabrications, half truths and downright lies in it (along with occasional well known facts). Just the same as I wouldn't quote "The Protocols of Zion's Elders" or "Mein Kampf" and falsify what they write if you brought that up.
Again another post which completely ignores the substance of the article, I mean, it'd be a lot easier if you just wrote: "I am unable to rebut the argument being put forward by the article and therefore am just going to debate like floor exercise".
"I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars," said Radwan, who puts the number of villagers killed at 93, listed in his own handwriting. "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."
- Mohammed Radwan, fought and survived the Deir Yassin battle, reported by Paul Holmes, Middle East Times, 20-April-1998
PBS BBC Documentary about the Deir Yassin Lies
It was a military conflict on a strategic point leading to Jerusalem. The result was around 110 Arabs dead some of them civilians, some of them Iraqi soldiers dressed as women. Khalidi and other leaders created a lot of horrible lies and published them to cause the Arab armies around to come and destroy the Jews. The effect was ironically opposite, the Arabs who were convinced the lies were true were horrified and fled as fast as they could from Israel. They later admitted they were wrong in doing that and that it caused them more harm than good to invent those horrible things.
"The Red Cross was called in to assist the wounded and civilians, found no evidence of a massacre. The most recent review (July 1999), by Arab scholars at Beir Zayyit University in Ramallah, indicates that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civiliams were killed in the crossfire. The total Arab dead included Iraqi soldiers dressed as women to hide among them, according to the Beir Zayyit calculation, was 107."
"PBS with the joint BBC-WGBH production traced the turbulent events of the last half century since the founding of the modern nation of Israel.
Following in the footsteps of Palestinian historians such as Walid Khalidi of Harvard University and Shairf Kana'ana of Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, West Bank, they show that the massacre of Deir Yasin in 1948 was exaggerated by the Arab side. Rather than encourage resistance, this precipitated the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into neighbouring Arab countries.
As a result of this propaganda, Arab civilians panicked and fled by the tens of thousands. This was confirmed in the PBS documentary called The Fifty Years of War in which Deir Yassin survivors were interviewed. They testified that they had begged Dr. Hussein Khalidi, director of Voice of Palestine (the Palestinian radio station in East Jerusalem) to edit out the lies and fabrications of atrocities that never happened. He cynically exaggerated the casualties of the Deir Yassin battle, making up stories of gang rape, brutalizing of pregnant women, killing unborn children cut from their mothers' wombs by blood-thirsty Jews, and massive murders with bodies thrown into a nearby quarry.
In the PBS special, "The Fifty Years' War," and in the accompanying book by the same name, written by Jihan El-Tawri and Aaron Bregman, the lie for the greater good—"Al-Taqiya"—reappears, as an Arab eye-witness recalls:
The following morning the surviving villagers [after the battle] went to a meeting with the National Committee, the local Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem. It was up to the committee to decide how they should handle what had happened. Mahmoud [Mahmoud Assad Yassini] remembers that the survivors were asked to exaggerate some aspects of the terrible events: "When we arrived in Jerusalem, we were taken to a hotel near the Damascus gate. We started asking each other who had been killed, who was alive. Then the leaders of the National Committee arrived, including Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi [head of the National Committee in Jerusalem]. He invited some of us to his headquarters. He said: ' We want you to say that the Jews slaughtered people, committed atrocities, raped, and stole gold.' He said you have to say this so that the Arab [not Palestinian] armies will finally make a move and come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."
Hazem Nusseibah, a senior program assistant for the Palestine Broadcasting Corporation, was also contacted by the National Committee. "Dr. Hussein Khalidi phoned me," he remembers, "and said we must alert the Arab countries to what is happening. I was sure there were no rapes, but we were shaken by the events." Ironically, it was Nusseibah's broadcast exaggerating the atrocities that triggered the mass exodus of Palestinians [Arabs] from their homes. He recalls: "We transmitted Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi's statement mentioning rape and this and that. It had a devasting impact on everyone in Palestine, and the exodus began....It was the biggest blunder that could have happened."
Abu Tawkif and Abu Mahmoud resent the way these distortions of the truth led to Arabs fleeing their homes. Mahmoud observes, "Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi was the one who caused the catastrophe. Instead of working in our favor, the propaganda worked in favor of the Jews. Whole villages and towns fled because of what they heard had happened in Deir Yassin." And while relating the story on PBS, Hazem Nusseibah and Dr. Hussein Khalidi can be seen chuckling with one another about how wrong they were in creating the lie of Deir Yassin [which] definitely caused the Arab population to run away every time they thought a Jewish soldier was coming near. "
Maybe if both people survive themselves, when the Sea of Galilee dries up, both sides will sit down and use reason to solve their problems. Unfortunately fratricidal wars always end up with many dead brothers. The descendants of Shlem have been at it for eons..
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place?
How does anybody take any land?
There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there. Then on the date that they became an official country rather than a piece of UN protected land, all their surrounding countries attacked them and then got messed up.
So for Israel their acquiring their land when it was first established as a country, did not come by bloodshed but by UN edict. Then only AFTER they were attacked, did they expand on their land.
This continues the long history Israel has of being attacked first, then counterattacking and coming out victorious because they use American equipment.
But the point is that Israel's enemies almost always are the ones who start the bloodshed. Israel is almost always the one who counterattacks and defends itself with what some might call "disproportionate" force--which is a stupid term as I have shown anyway.
Yes the Israelis never committed any act of preemptive aggression. Are you serious? If you know so little about middle east history then you really shouldn't be writing in this thread at all.
Hint- Here's a clue for you, one example of terrorist activities carried out by Zionist groups:
"The King David Hotel bombing was a deadly bomb strike by the Irgun, a militant Zionist group, on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The offensive was carried out on 22 July 1946 and was the deadliest attack against the British during the Mandate era (1920-1948).
Operating in disguise, Irgun members planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, part of which housed the Mandate Secretariat and the British military headquarters. Telephoned warnings were sent to the main switchboard of the hotel, the Palestine Post newspaper and the French consulate[1][2], but no evacuation was carried out, giving rise to much controversy over the reasons why people were not cleared from the building. The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the southwestern corner of the southern wing of the hotel. 91 people were killed and 46 were injured, with some of the deaths and injuries occurring in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.[1]"
On January 02 2009 00:33 iloveoil wrote: I guess starving them to death was taking too long
yeah, that or maybe their cute little homemade rockets landed in their neighbor's backyard a few times too often
We keep hearing about this constant barrage of sophisticated Syrian rockets into Tel Aviv, but look at the death counts. As of this morning: 4 Israelis dead, 425 Palestinians dead.
Are Israelis just that much better at running around dodging missiles?
Do people realize that Israel has choked off supplies to Gaza for several years now. Electricity, food, water, paper and specifically school supplies. And it's not like we're talking about Afghanis who are used to living in crap, this is an educated, developed population.
Do people realize that Israel has choked off supplies to Gaza for several years now. Electricity, food, water, paper and specifically school supplies. And it's not like we're talking about Afghanis who are used to living in crap, this is an educated, developed population.
I think this is the missing link to the conversation. Earlier in the thread someone tried to make the point that the conflict only reaches the news when Israel strikes, but not every time Hamas launches a rocket into Israel. Just the same the news is not reporting on how Israel has Gaza on complete lockdown. They are not even letting medical supplies in right now. There is daily and ongoing oppression of Gaza that is completely ignored in the media. These aren't 2 equal parties sizing each other up. One party has its hands around the others throat on a daily basis.
''There is daily and ongoing oppression of Gaza that is completely ignored in the media. These aren't 2 equal parties sizing each other up. One party has its hands around the others throat on a daily basis''
that is true... i was talking with hypocrate Zuroff from Simon Wiesenthal... when i asked him about fascism in Gaza, lockdown of electricity, water, food, medications.. he said that it is way to fight against terrorism... if he is so brainwashed then we can't imagine how brainwashed is whole nation...
On January 02 2009 00:13 Locke. wrote: The truth is that having a "Palestinian State" in Israel means the destruction of Israel, it will never be a peaceful solution. Both practically and ideologically it will never work and we are seeing it clearer and clearer every day that passes by. The Palestinian Liberation Front was made before 1967 with the purpose of destroying Israel and joining a large Pan-Arabian state. It is not about "Palestinian" identity, it is about Arab identity. When the Arabs in Israel lived under Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian "occupation" they didn't ask any of them for independence.
They want Israel to be an Arab country with no Jews and we want a Jewish country with a faithful Arab minority. Unfortunately our treacherous leadership has accepted the madness of the Palestinian idea and now either a war or the slow destruction of Israel is inevitable.
The only way there will ever be something similar to peace around Israel is if Israel will control all of its land, the arabs who aren't loyal to our country will be asked to live in one of the 57 muslim countries or where ever they wish (getting financial help from Israel to leave) and those who do accept Israel can live in it as a minority with complete human rights (far more than they receive in any Arab country).
"Arab Identity" Mate you have been reading too much Zionist propaganda. This is the first point that any Zionist tries to make is that Arabs make no distinction between a Palestinian or a Syrian or a "Muslim". This is why i never reply to any of your posts ever, because the whole foundation of your mindset is decrepit.
Oh and to add to the ops input on Clash of Civilizations. To sum up, the entire Palestine-Israel conflict in terms of clash of civilizations is like trying to say that the reason Bisu and Savior fight is because Bisu plays Protoss, and savior Zerg, which to an outsider who has never seen starcraft in his life can assume, but the real conflict is much deeper than that, so deep that Huntington needs to get off his high ass and sit down and do some thinking which doesn't involve grabbing the first thing that surfaces the mind.
On January 04 2009 08:50 purgerinho wrote: israeli scum... they are like nazis and i hope they will end just like nazis..
You can't seriously compare Hitler's manufacturing "incidents" in order to invade neighboring countries and Israel's responding to rockets being fired on them from a neighboring state. I mean, rockets are being fired on you, how can you not respond? Hamas is not even a rogue terrorist organization operating in Gaza--they are are the Gazan government.
Even if you think that Israel's responses are out-of-proportion and wrong--and I understand that viewpoint, although it's much easier to criticize than to offer alternatives--your provocative-but-shallow analogies only degrade your argument.
Arab Identity" Mate you have been reading too much Zionist propaganda.
Thats a great point. People often make the case that the rest of the Middle East should just take the Palestinians as if they all have some inherent connection. The histories and cultures of middle eastern countries vary as much as those of European countries. Read The Arab Awakening to see the rise of arab nationalism. In short, "arab" (the term arab does not really even correctly apply to everyone in the middle east) culture was significantly diminished during the Ottoman empire. At the turn of the 19th century people in Syria bagan to revive arab culture through organizing social meetings and spreading literature. As a social movement this gained a lot of momentum and spread throughout the region. This happened to happen simultaneously with the influx of a Zionist presence in Palestine, so there were 2 competing social movements, one of arabs attempting to reestablish a seemingly lost vibrant culture, and the other of zionist attempting to create a safe haven for jews in the diaspora (primarily Russia). I think the zionist have used that to create the impression of a larger middle eastern unity that really does not exist.
We see that in this thread as Locke. says that the Palestinians could just pack up and go to "one of the other 57 muslim countries", as if Islam was a singular strain of culture and identity, and nation states are anything but self centered. Even Israel experienced cultural problems as jews around the world migrated to Israel and the Ashkenazi jews began looking down upon the Sephardi jews, essentially because of cultural differences.
the reality of Gaza. The shit we don't get to see. The shit that makes saying "gaza deserved it" much harder to say. Its much harder to face when you actually watch the aftermath of such an attack. I dont care who broke the fucking truce, im sure it was both sides. The world should demand absolutely nothing less than a ceasefire from both countries, especially israel.
On January 04 2009 13:17 HeavenS wrote: The world should demand absolutely nothing less than a ceasefire from both countries, especially israel.
How can you have "both" and "especially" in the same sentence? Unless you mean to include the possibility of one country's ceasing fire even as the other continues, but that seems unrealistic to me.
Meh...if there is such a suggestion that israel is such a western-backed nation...then what would make you think that the NYT would publish information discrediting their allies?...
On January 04 2009 14:12 Jaskwith wrote: Meh...if there is such a suggestion that israel is such a western-backed nation...then what would make you think that the NYT would publish information discrediting their allies?...
/run conspiracy theory
lol maybe you should look at how much the US helped out Israel before saying anything
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote: Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I apologise for my ignorance earlier.. But may I ask you, in your country, do you really get stoned to death for adultery or homosexuality? In that case are you able to surf porn sites? If porn sites are restricted, then how are you able to read objective articles on the internet for other things, for example, articles that are pro-Israel?
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't know how liberal/totalitarian the legal system is in your country, cyber-laws or otherwise.
By the way Locke, I genuinely hope you would give this article a read: http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm - gives you a good background behind the conflict.
I need to clarify some things, too much talk about Iran...
first off don't mix Iran with arab countries, Iran is separate.
about the net importer of oil, well Iran doesn't import oil, but does import most of the gas(benzin) used in the country...
i haven't heard about the stoning for a few years now, but i saw a video of it, low quality one, but it was horrible...fucked up really...
accessing porn can be done, poeple always find proxies to pass the filter of government. what's the internet for then ?)
And to back Xeris' posts, Iran will NEVER attack Israel, the conflict in that region is actually in favor of our government -which in the top, are not crazy-...something to take attention off of them.
I hope this regime that we have now, which is ruling Iran for ~30 years -negligiable compared to 2500+ years of kingdom- can at least wash away Islam from the minds of our people, I saw the reverse effects of it, it is working, people are hating Islam more and more because of them...just a matter of time.
on topic now, for the record i don't like both sides, i consider both sides of the conflict ARABS, they are and were brothers, let them kill each other...it wouldn't be the first or the last time.
the reality of Gaza. The shit we don't get to see. The shit that makes saying "gaza deserved it" much harder to say. Its much harder to face when you actually watch the aftermath of such an attack. I dont care who broke the fucking truce, im sure it was both sides. The world should demand absolutely nothing less than a ceasefire from both countries, especially israel.
Thanks a lot for sharing this video: the world we live in...
I find it very hard to root for either country, since both of them are doing some fucked up shit. It's very hard to root for Israel, because they shouldn't be in the West Bank to begin with, and they tend to just ignore international law where they see fit. Also rooting for the country that fights hand held rockets with jet planes seems somewhat grotesque: propertionate responses please. On the other hand suicide bombings and rockets into civilian quarters, Hamas, is not something any sane person would support. No matter your current situation, blowing yourself and 20 others up is never acceptable. I've plowed through the majority of the wikipedia article, and it really seems like both parties are idiots - Israel perhaps a bit more than Palestine. If they really wanted peace, it seems some sort of negotations would be a step in the right direction. I doubt Bush has done a lot to help the situation either, and perhaps the US should just back the fuck up and don't abuse their veto power in the security counsel.
Just my 2, very poorly written, c's. I hope for a peaceful solutions, but it really involves both parties getting down from their thrones and meeting each other on equal footing.
Israel and the US don't wan't to create a stable situation. Their policy is to have the Palestinians live like dogs. Whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads. Thats the policy they have always been pushing. Anything that goes against that is blocked in the UN by US veto.
On January 04 2009 21:06 Hans-Titan wrote: It's very hard to root for Israel, because they shouldn't be in the West Bank to begin with.
Honestly? They have more reason to be in the West Bank than the US has to be in California. The West Bank was claimed and controlled by Jordan when it declared war on Israel in 1967; Israel captured it in the course of that war.
I don't want to really get involved in questions of right and wrong involving territories, because they're frankly too complicated for me, and there are too many sides to every question. Israel never annexed the West Bank as far as I know, and there's a lot of politics involved too. Maybe Israel shouldn't be in the West Bank, but does that mean they should hand it over to the Palestinians? When previous transfers of land have done nothing to stop terrorism (on the contrary, giving terrorists a wider base)?
My only point is that it's easy for outsiders (me as much as anyone, of course) to criticize, and another thing to be there on the ground. Don't judge someone until you walk a mile in their shoes, etc.: that goes for the Gazans as well as Israel (oh, by the way, Gaza is not the West Bank, Hans).
The sad reality is that when Israel evacuated Gush Katif we not only strengthened the terrorists physically, we also gave them and the world the message that Israel is not really ours. We gave up our justice in a sense, and no country can exist well without a sense of justice(sometimes its a twisted justice like in many totalitarian countries, but it's still necessary). We cannot defeat the Palestinian terror because our leadership agrees with its cause in a sense.
If our leaders say that Hebron is not Israel, that half of Jerusalem is not Israel, that the burial place of Joseph isn't Israel than Tel Aviv and Raanana are certainly not Israel. There is no justification for Israel's existence except to be a country for Jews and try as we may we can not escape the fact that Judea(West Bank) is the core of our history.
If Israel is willing to give up the monument of the graves of Abraham, Isaac and Jakob in Hebron what right does Tel Aviv has to exist? Setting aside religion and all that, THEY are the reason we are here and not anywhere else, not any UN decision and not even the holocaust.
for crying out loud let the WW3 being, let the arabs israelites northkorean and americans nuke themselves out of existance and the rest of the world will be a much better place.
of course, it is retorical speech.. i wouldn't want nukes anywhere.. but i would love that this thing stop.. i can't cry if some israeli lover dies when israel is state made after genocide and deaths of innocent ppl... and it is here for 60 yrs, six decades of killings, death and destruction..
and i'm sad coz of it.. coz of bush policie i wasn't sad after 9/11, i was happy in some way, some sick way.. and in some sick way i wuld be happy if arabs destroy israel like israel destroyed palestina.. it is sick but i can't help myself anymore.. when i would be closer to israel i wuld go in war against them, i would stood on palestinas side in real life.. isn't it sick? i'm really peaceful guy but policie of israel and usa makes me so angry, i'm just like animal..
Did you know, that Hamas fires their rockets out of schools and hospitals, and also hides their ammunition in schools and hospitals? that's because Israel is so humanitary, that we won't attack those places if it kills so many innocent civilians.
Also, in the 2006 Lebanon war, Hamas purposely fired rockets from populated villages. So that when we attack them, many civilians will die - and the world will protest. That's exactly what they want.
Did you know that israel is right now risking its own soldiers' lives, by sending them into Gaza? why? Because if israel wanted to destroy hamas/gaza etc., they COULD simply bomb the fuck out of it and not risk soldiers. But, so many civilians would die.. so instead, we risk our own soldiers, sending them to the what i think is a death trap (hamas is well armed, trained, and ready) just so palestinians', who actually CHOSE the hamas, wouldn't get hurt.
So i think that tells you a bit about how israel and hamas value people's lives. western vs arab world much...
On January 05 2009 06:52 Tacticas wrote: Did you know, that Hamas fires their rockets out of schools and hospitals, and also hides their ammunition in schools and hospitals? that's because Israel is so humanitary, that we won't attack those places if it kills so many innocent civilians.
Also, in the 2006 Lebanon war, Hamas purposely fired rockets from populated villages. So that when we attack them, many civilians will die - and the world will protest. That's exactly what they want.
Did you know that israel is right now risking its own soldiers' lives, by sending them into Gaza? why? Because if israel wanted to destroy hamas/gaza etc., they COULD simply bomb the fuck out of it and not risk soldiers. But, so many civilians would die.. so instead, we risk our own soldiers, sending them to the what i think is a death trap (hamas is well armed, trained, and ready) just so palestinians', who actually CHOSE the hamas, wouldn't get hurt.
So i think that tells you a bit about how israel and hamas value people's lives. western vs arab world much...
Do you have evidence it's the people's lives they value, rather than their own image to the rest of the world?
Israel is shielding it's people at the south. In Sederot, there's a bomb shelter every few meters. (Sederot is the city getting most of the rockets) Israel has also shielded schools, houses, etc.
Israel is attacking now, to dismantle hamas and keep the people at the south safe. Had we cared for our image to the rest of the world so much, we would just continue getting bombed and yell, "we're poor, we're getting bombed, and we're not killing palestinians". That would make the world support israel. But we care for our people and don't give a shit about the world's support - so we're going out to defend the people at the south.
On January 05 2009 06:52 Tacticas wrote: Did you know, that Hamas fires their rockets out of schools and hospitals, and also hides their ammunition in schools and hospitals? that's because Israel is so humanitary, that we won't attack those places if it kills so many innocent civilians.
Also, in the 2006 Lebanon war, Hamas purposely fired rockets from populated villages. So that when we attack them, many civilians will die - and the world will protest. That's exactly what they want.
Did you know that israel is right now risking its own soldiers' lives, by sending them into Gaza? why? Because if israel wanted to destroy hamas/gaza etc., they COULD simply bomb the fuck out of it and not risk soldiers. But, so many civilians would die.. so instead, we risk our own soldiers, sending them to the what i think is a death trap (hamas is well armed, trained, and ready) just so palestinians', who actually CHOSE the hamas, wouldn't get hurt.
So i think that tells you a bit about how israel and hamas value people's lives. western vs arab world much...
Wasn't it Hisbolla in Lebanon and not Hamas? dunno am getting all mixed up the situation is so fucking crazy
On January 05 2009 06:52 Tacticas wrote: Did you know, that Hamas fires their rockets out of schools and hospitals, and also hides their ammunition in schools and hospitals? that's because Israel is so humanitary, that we won't attack those places if it kills so many innocent civilians.
Also, in the 2006 Lebanon war, Hamas purposely fired rockets from populated villages. So that when we attack them, many civilians will die - and the world will protest. That's exactly what they want.
Did you know that israel is right now risking its own soldiers' lives, by sending them into Gaza? why? Because if israel wanted to destroy hamas/gaza etc., they COULD simply bomb the fuck out of it and not risk soldiers. But, so many civilians would die.. so instead, we risk our own soldiers, sending them to the what i think is a death trap (hamas is well armed, trained, and ready) just so palestinians', who actually CHOSE the hamas, wouldn't get hurt.
So i think that tells you a bit about how israel and hamas value people's lives. western vs arab world much...
Sorry but the terrorist state of Israel killed the founder and leader of Hamas and has terrorized the group and zone that rightuflly belongs to the palestinians for a long long time now
Well what is the problem now is that it seems that the world public is more swayed by mob mentality and media in their region.
I mean take the U.S. media on it is mostly support for Israel because U.S. has always supported Israel and been always on the whole ideal's over results kind of policy in which people soak up living there even if they a bit of a cynic.
Basically what the protesters show is that either the public opinion in those area's fit Hamas and don't recognize Israel or more likely is that apparently the ideal's that build a country any country are not as important anymore. So that now it's bleeding mad to carry though defending your own nations interest at the sake of another's even if the other country interest is to end your country. Because that's what most people that are against Israel's actions seem to me.
Frankly I cannot see the logic of chastising something that you know dam well that your country would do the same and you would support if it was happening to you. Or maybe you just believe that small aren't responsible for their actions because they are small they can now get away with anything because they lack power.
Feuds like this go back for a long time apparently some people believe that all people should be just like them and get over it. It's why they burn small shops and cars when they protest because they care about live that much =p Seriously mob mentality much at those protests. What do you expect your government is doing they say yeah oh well help with a cease fire but they aren't doing anything the fact of the manor is that it wont stop as long as malice is directed at Israel by surrounding nations.
To me Israel has the right to protect it's people else it's not a government. Also what the hell do you expect them to do send their army in riot gear and seize everything I'm pretty sure the people would resist them with guns. I mean if they are firing rockets I'm pretty sure they can take the time to get a 20 dollar AK47 Or maybe you should just encourage them firing rockets by doing nothing so then they can tell the people they are winning!
Apparently the world can recognize Israel but not support it. Might as well join the bandwagon with most of the middle east and not recognize Israel and not support it.
On January 05 2009 07:12 travis wrote: Well obviously israel values it's own people's lives. I was talking about the lives of the civillians of the opposing factions/nations/whatever.
It's like saying that every person is selfish, because doing good deeds to others makes you feel good - hence you're doing it for yourself. Israel is humanitary. Wether it's out of actual concern for the enemy's civilians, or for their image to the world. Hamas kills civilians on purpose. Israel avoids it.
On January 05 2009 07:16 Sadir wrote:
Wasn't it Hisbolla in Lebanon and not Hamas? dunno am getting all mixed up the situation is so fucking crazy
people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
On January 05 2009 06:32 purgerinho wrote: blood thirtsty animals..
of course, it is retorical speech.. i wouldn't want nukes anywhere.. but i would love that this thing stop.. i can't cry if some israeli lover dies when israel is state made after genocide and deaths of innocent ppl... and it is here for 60 yrs, six decades of killings, death and destruction..
and i'm sad coz of it.. coz of bush policie i wasn't sad after 9/11, i was happy in some way, some sick way.. and in some sick way i wuld be happy if arabs destroy israel like israel destroyed palestina.. it is sick but i can't help myself anymore.. when i would be closer to israel i wuld go in war against them, i would stood on palestinas side in real life.. isn't it sick? i'm really peaceful guy but policie of israel and usa makes me so angry, i'm just like animal..
wow some sick people out there... why were you happy after 9/11?
please don't answer, would be better if you'd keep your sick rationale to yourself.
On January 05 2009 08:16 afg-warrior wrote: people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
I'm pretty sure the blockade and siege is due to the break down a cease fire. Why not work on internal improvements instead of lets play hide and go seek with our missiles and the Israeli air force. Can't say they are planning to win.
On January 05 2009 08:16 afg-warrior wrote: people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
That's a lie. We have been supplying food, electricity, water, humanitarian aid and a lot of money for the whole period before the operation. They only stopped it for a day here and there when the Hamas fired more than usual. Egypt on the other hand has closed its checkpoint completely not allowing the "innocent" Palestinians to find shelter in Egypt while the operation is going on and stopping humanitarian aid.
Two weeks before the operation the Israeli government transferred 100 Million $ to the Hamas, while the rockets continued to fall. If that's not treason, what is? BTW if the Palestinians would use the money they get to better the life of their civilians instead of using it all on weapons and terror, they would be in a better situation.
On January 05 2009 08:16 afg-warrior wrote: people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
That's a lie. We have been supplying food, electricity, water, humanitarian aid and a lot of money for the whole period before the operation. They only stopped it for a day here and there when the Hamas fired more than usual. Egypt on the other hand has closed its checkpoint completely not allowing the "innocent" Palestinians to find shelter in Egypt while the operation is going on and stopping humanitarian aid.
Two weeks before the operation the Israeli government transferred 100 Million $ to the Hamas, while the rockets continued to fall. If that's not treason, what is? BTW if the Palestinians would use the money they get to better the life of their civilians instead of using it all on weapons and terror, they would be in a better situation.
People want hand out apparently now of days they could at least try hand ups =p All i think of how they are able to fire off about 200-300 rockets every month is wow and they can't seem to improve their situation because they fire off rockets which cost money then they have to take the punishment of doing so which cost them more money.
Personally i blame European media that highlights the death toll while American media highlights the fact they Hamas is being the man aggressor here.
A problem with two fundamentalistic states. One want to oblivirot the other and one belives that they are the people of God. And the country who could stop this thinks that they are Gods.
Thread is a clusterfuck. How about organizing a list of contentions and their subparts, here's an example:
[1] The legitimacy of Israel: yay (a) or nay (b) [1a] War justified by years of continuous Hamas aggression, yes (A) or no (B) [1aA] Do you think Hamas can be completely routed? What is the exit strategy? Won't terrorists still use Gaza as a launching pad into southern Israel after demobilization? [1aB] What should Israeli response have been? What response would you expect from your own government? Does the low success rate of rocket fire from Gaza lessen the hostility of the action? [1b] Realistic alternative to a sovereign Israel? I don't see any.
While it is true that Israel's blockade of Gaza is driving them to fire rockets and respond harshly, can you blame Israel for enforcing that blockade after the people in Gaza freely elected Hamas, an organization whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and actively attempts to act towards that purpose. I don't see why Israel should be expected to have any dealings at all with that country, much less provide them aid. Since most of you here are from the United States, let me use an example that will be easy to understand. Imagine that here in Canada we elected Al-Queida to power. How do you imagine the American government would respond to that?
On January 05 2009 12:46 daz wrote: While it is true that Israel's blockade of Gaza is driving them to fire rockets and respond harshly, can you blame Israel for enforcing that blockade after the people in Gaza freely elected Hamas, an organization whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and actively attempts to act towards that purpose. I don't see why Israel should be expected to have any dealings at all with that country, much less provide them aid. Since most of you here are from the United States, let me use an example that will be easy to understand. Imagine that here in Canada we elected Al-Queida to power. How do you imagine the American government would respond to that?
On January 05 2009 12:46 daz wrote: While it is true that Israel's blockade of Gaza is driving them to fire rockets and respond harshly, can you blame Israel for enforcing that blockade after the people in Gaza freely elected Hamas, an organization whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and actively attempts to act towards that purpose. I don't see why Israel should be expected to have any dealings at all with that country, much less provide them aid. Since most of you here are from the United States, let me use an example that will be easy to understand. Imagine that here in Canada we elected Al-Queida to power. How do you imagine the American government would respond to that?
Yeah, democracy fails.. communism ftw.
When a group of people votes in a party whose banner is:
Yeah, you begin question democracy as a sufficient condition to legitimacy.
Richard Falk For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.
Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza. Clearly, prior to the current crisis, Israel used its authority to prevent credible observers from giving accurate and truthful accounts of the dire humanitarian situation that had been already documented as producing severe declines in the physical condition and mental health of the Gazan population, especially noting malnutrition among children and the absence of treatment facilities for those suffering from a variety of diseases. The Israeli attacks were directed against a society already in grave condition after a blockade maintained during the prior 18 months.
As always in relation to the underlying conflict, some facts bearing on this latest crisis are murky and contested, although the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens. Hamas is blamed for the breakdown of the truce by its supposed unwillingness to renew it, and by the alleged increased incidence of rocket attacks. But the reality is more clouded. There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade are anti-Hamas, and may even be sending rockets to provoke or justify Israeli retaliation. It is well confirmed that when US-supported Fatah controlled Gaza's governing structure it was unable to stop rocket attacks despite a concerted effort to do so.
What this background suggests strongly is that Israel launched its devastating attacks, starting on December 27, not simply to stop the rockets or in retaliation, but also for a series of unacknowledged reasons. It was evident for several weeks prior to the Israeli attacks that the Israeli military and political leaders were preparing the public for large-scale military operations against the Hamas. The timing of the attacks seemed prompted by a series of considerations: most of all, the interest of political contenders, the Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in demonstrating their toughness prior to national elections scheduled for February, but now possibly postponed until military operations cease. Such Israeli shows of force have been a feature of past Israeli election campaigns, and on this occasion especially, the current government was being successfully challenged by Israel's notoriously militarist politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, for its supposed failures to uphold security. Reinforcing these electoral motivations was the little concealed pressure from the Israeli military commanders to seize the opportunity in Gaza to erase the memories of their failure to destroy Hezbollah in the devastating Lebanon War of 2006 that both tarnished Israel's reputation as a military power and led to widespread international condemnation of Israel for the heavy bombardment of undefended Lebanese villages, disproportionate force, and extensive use of cluster bombs against heavily populated areas.
Respected and conservative Israeli commentators go further. For instance, the prominent historian, Benny Morris writing in the New York Times a few days ago, relates the campaign in Gaza to a deeper set of forebodings in Israel that he compares to the dark mood of the public that preceded the 1967 War when Israelis felt deeply threatened by Arab mobilizations on their borders. Morris insists that despite Israeli prosperity of recent years, and relative security, several factors have led Israel to act boldly in Gaza: the perceived continuing refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel as an established reality; the inflammatory threats voiced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together with Iran's supposed push to acquire nuclear weapons, the fading memory of the Holocaust combined with growing sympathy in the West with the Palestinian plight, and the radicalization of political movements on Israel's borders in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. In effect, Morris argues that Israel is trying via the crushing of Hamas in Gaza to send a wider message to the region that it will stop at nothing to uphold its claims of sovereignty and security.
There are two conclusions that emerge: the people of Gaza are being severely victimized for reasons remote from the rockets and border security concerns, but seemingly to improve election prospects of current leaders now facing defeat, and to warn others in the region that Israel will use overwhelming force whenever its interests are at stake.
That such a human catastrophe can happen with minimal outside interference also shows the weakness of international law and the United Nations, as well as the geopolitical priorities of the important players. The passive support of the United States government for whatever Israel does is again the critical factor, as it was in 2006 when it launched its aggressive war against Lebanon. What is less evident is that the main Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with their extreme hostility toward Hamas that is viewed as backed by Iran, their main regional rival, were also willing to stand aside while Gaza was being so brutally attacked, with some Arab diplomats even blaming the attacks on Palestinian disunity or on the refusal of Hamas to accept the leadership of Mamoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.
The people of Gaza are victims of geopolitics at its inhumane worst: producing what Israel itself calls a 'total war' against an essentially defenseless society that lacks any defensive military capability whatsoever and is completely vulnerable to Israeli attacks mounted by F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters. What this also means is that the flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions, is quietly set aside while the carnage continues and the bodies pile up. It additionally means that the UN is once more revealed to be impotent when its main members deprive it of the political will to protect a people subject to unlawful uses of force on a large scale. Finally, this means that the public can shriek and march all over the world, but that the killing will go on as if nothing is happening. The picture being painted day by day in Gaza is one that begs for renewed commitment to international law and the authority of the UN Charter, starting here in the United States, especially with a new leadership that promised its citizens change, including a less militarist approach to diplomatic leadership.
On January 05 2009 23:01 HeadBangaa wrote: Did you know that statistics shows 70% of Westerners do not even know the name of the prophet of Islam, the messenger of the one true God Allah?
I wonder how long the western world will actually still care about this stuff... I mean, it only bores me and i actually don't care the slightest anymore about either side.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
What the fuck are you saying? That it's OK to shoot rockets at people because the rockets suck? You think they wouldn't use better ones if they have them?
Shitty rockets don't demonstrate an ability to destroy Isreal, but they sure as hell demonstrate intent. Pair that intent with an utter impossibility to guarantee that they will never get better weapons, and you have a situation that bears out Locke's statement very well.
I just don't understand your post. BY your logic it should be OK for me to punch Fyoder Emelianenko because I am not an MMA fighter and in response he should hold back and not deck me, but instead allow me to continue to throw punches at him. That's ludicrous. I'd never beat him in a straight fight, but that doesn't mean he has to let me try. I could get lucky with a punch (like Hamas could get better weapons). And no one should have to allow someone to punch him.
On January 05 2009 23:43 Velr wrote: I wonder how long the western world will actually still care about this stuff... I mean, it only bores me and i actually don't care the slightest anymore about either side.
Retards, both sides.
lol thats exactly how whole ur country acts, they just dosent seem to care. that might be safe but in the end
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
I have storng positions on some things, most swiss do, we just don't believe in war.. But this Israel/Palastine thing is just *broken*. Either *force* relative peace down there by international troops or else stop bitching about it. There is obviously no one that really wants to do something about it so why do we still argue about it? The US is pro Israel and just vetos anything which could lead to some harm for Israel and the arabic states just use it as anti Israel propaganda.
Talk about what is to do and do it. Or stop talking about it, it's just a waste of time.
Btw: Poland obviously had never someone to talk to... Or what should i get from your extremly stupid argument against neutrality? Rather occupied than neutral?
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
What the fuck are you saying? That it's OK to shoot rockets at people because the rockets suck? You think they wouldn't use better ones if they have them?
Shitty rockets don't demonstrate an ability to destroy Isreal, but they sure as hell demonstrate intent. Pair that intent with an utter impossibility to guarantee that they will never get better weapons, and you have a situation that bears out Locke's statement very well.
I just don't understand your post. BY your logic it should be OK for me to punch Fyoder Emelianenko because I am not an MMA fighter and in response he should hold back and not deck me, but instead allow me to continue to throw punches at him. That's ludicrous. I'd never beat him in a straight fight, but that doesn't mean he has to let me try. I could get lucky with a punch (like Hamas could get better weapons). And no one should have to allow someone to punch him.
It was an answer to the previous post that "Israel would be destroyed" if they laid down their weapons and if the palestinians laid down theirs it would be peace. Hamas can't possibly destroy Israel it's a starving population living in the worlds largest open air prison who've been under a harsh brutal military occupation for forty years. Israel can't stop these rockets by bombing Gaza it will only fuel more hatred and anger towards Israel. I don't agree with Hamas's views neither do I agree with US/Israeli views but one thing worth noticing is that Hamas's views are closer to the international standpoint then that of US/Israel. Hamas have accepted the two state solution supported by the entire world except US/Israel.
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
Zionism was of course a 19th century European product, and European intellectual trends went a long way toward re-inventing Israel for the modern era, but even so, Jewish nationalism was a synthetic product suited to minority tastes well into the 20th century; the common experience of European Jews in the Second World War probably aided the concept more than any of her original theologians.
In the circumstances, the emigration to the Palestine prior to the Second World War did not amount to more than trickle of ambitious European Jews, and by 1948 it's clear that the swelling demographic presence of Jews in the Palestine did not warrant the erroneous partition made by the UNSC which allotted 56% of Palestinian territory to the Jewish minority, the State of Israel encompassing an Arab minority amounting to over a third of the population, whereas the Palestinian state was exclusively Arab. If the Palestinian nation was an artificial nation, born out of resistance to Israeli occupation, the same can be moreso argued of Israel, mutandis mutatis.
The United States does not bear sole responsibility for Israel's survival. From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours, even in 1948, when Israel certainly did not possess any element of materiel superiority. The conflicts between Israel and her neighbours have perpectually been rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies which stretch back to the confrontations between Greece and Persia. Prior to 1967, France was the primary arms supplier to Israel, and it was only during the 1970s that the firm geopolitical alliance between America and Israel was struck. Although since that time, the United States has done much to establish Israel as the regional hegemon, this was true even earlier due to the weakness of her Arab neighbours.
Israel's actions seem uncouth to much of the world, because her military strength and existential insecurity co-exist comfortably, and the reactions of insecure powerhouses are always problematic. Israel's very history perpectuates her identity as a nation under siege, and these impressions last long after tangible physical dangers have passed.
On January 05 2009 23:43 Velr wrote: I wonder how long the western world will actually still care about this stuff... I mean, it only bores me and i actually don't care the slightest anymore about either side.
Retards, both sides.
Agreed. I hear about the conflict every day on the news, I am bored and I just don't care about it.
(But I guess they must show it because of all the muslims in Sweden, thank you USA -_-)
The Israel-Palestine conflict is given coverage out of proportion with its significance, but look on the bright side: without it, public debate would be stifled even more than in its present pathetic condition, and we would resort to either self-inflicted problems to maintain our virility, or degenerate into sloth and apathy.
Be glad that the world created so many fertile problems for us to pontificate upon, and that we may do so without any personal risks.
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
Palestine was made a mandate of the British Empire by the League of Nations. The state of Palestine was fully supported by the British to the point of British soldiers forcefully preventing Jewish immigration into Palestine. The was a huge uproar in the media about denying Jews the safety of their own nation after the Holocaust. The British soldiers who had fought across Europe and liberated concentration camps were being painted as the new Nazis for trying to manage the situation. Britain realised the situation was way too complicated and basically said "fuck this, there's no way we can come out of this looking good, bye". Jews in Palestine created their own state which was promptly attacked by five other states. Let's not beat about the bush here about this. Five sovereign nations declared war on Israel on the first day of its existence. The land Israel has taken from them has been in strictly defensive wars and has been returned, as is the case with Jordan, in exchange for acceptance of Israels right to exist.
What's more remarkable is that at the Camp David peace talks Israel offered Yasser Arafat everything he wanted. If you made a checklist of all the Palestinian demands it would tick every box. But realising his own personal power was based upon the struggle with Israel he betrayed his own people by turning it down.
^um...that's kind of a stupid comment really, you know. Isaac and Ishmael didn't even fight in the Old Testament, FYI, and Jews and Arabs got along relatively well before the State of Israel came along.
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
Zionism was of course a 19th century European product, and European intellectual trends went a long way toward re-inventing Israel for the modern era, but even so, Jewish nationalism was a synthetic product suited to minority tastes well into the 20th century; the common experience of European Jews in the Second World War probably aided the concept more than any of her original theologians.
In the circumstances, the emigration to the Palestine prior to the Second World War did not amount to more than trickle of ambitious European Jews, and by 1948 it's clear that the swelling demographic presence of Jews in the Palestine did not warrant the erroneous partition made by the UNSC which allotted 56% of Palestinian territory to the Jewish minority, the State of Israel encompassing an Arab minority amounting to over a third of the population, whereas the Palestinian state was exclusively Arab. If the Palestinian nation was an artificial nation, born out of resistance to Israeli occupation, the same can be moreso argued of Israel, mutandis mutatis.
The United States does not bear sole responsibility for Israel's survival. From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours, even in 1948, when Israel certainly did not possess any element of materiel superiority. The conflicts between Israel and her neighbours have perpectually been rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies which stretch back to the confrontations between Greece and Persia. Prior to 1967, France was the primary arms supplier to Israel, and it was only during the 1970s that the firm geopolitical alliance between America and Israel was struck. Although since that time, the United States has done much to establish Israel as the regional hegemon, this was true even earlier due to the weakness of her Arab neighbours.
Israel's actions seem uncouth to much of the world, because her military strength and existential insecurity co-exist comfortably, and the reactions of insecure powerhouses are always problematic. Israel's very history perpectuates her identity as a nation under siege, and these impressions last long after tangible physical dangers have passed.
"common experience of European Jews in World War II" - that's a rather peculiar way of describing the systematic murder of the Jewish people, it sounds almost positive.
The British stopped the Jewish from immigrating to Israel using The White Book and many other actions. A very large of European Jews could have been saved by the atrocities of your country if the British would have allowed them to come BEFORE the holocaust and not just after.
You are right that the "Palestinian nation" is an artificial nation created to destroy the Jewish presence in Israel. To say that the opposite is just as much true is plain non sense, Israel was created to be a place for Jews all over the world. The Jews are not a fictive nation they weren't invented in the 19th century and their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists.. When the Germans could not read or write our extensive foundation as a people was already set and at its core the wish to return to Israel and to Jerusalem and build it anew. Adding Latin to it doesn't make it more valid.
"From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours," - Complete fabrication. There was a complete weapon embargo on Israel in 1948, its army was a lot weaker than the 6 huge Arab nations attacking it. It was expected that the Arabs would win and their defeat came as a great shock. The next 2 wars weren't different, though to be fair we were able to buy weapon, had more money, and had more time to organize. Israel was threatened with its complete destruction by all her surrounding countries a lot of times.
The Egyptians had a huge air force before 1967 and the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Iraqis had a lot more tanks than Israel as well. NOT a "rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies". It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel - you are fabricating the truth.
"Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional.
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
Zionism was of course a 19th century European product, and European intellectual trends went a long way toward re-inventing Israel for the modern era, but even so, Jewish nationalism was a synthetic product suited to minority tastes well into the 20th century; the common experience of European Jews in the Second World War probably aided the concept more than any of her original theologians.
In the circumstances, the emigration to the Palestine prior to the Second World War did not amount to more than trickle of ambitious European Jews, and by 1948 it's clear that the swelling demographic presence of Jews in the Palestine did not warrant the erroneous partition made by the UNSC which allotted 56% of Palestinian territory to the Jewish minority, the State of Israel encompassing an Arab minority amounting to over a third of the population, whereas the Palestinian state was exclusively Arab. If the Palestinian nation was an artificial nation, born out of resistance to Israeli occupation, the same can be moreso argued of Israel, mutandis mutatis.
The United States does not bear sole responsibility for Israel's survival. From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours, even in 1948, when Israel certainly did not possess any element of materiel superiority. The conflicts between Israel and her neighbours have perpectually been rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies which stretch back to the confrontations between Greece and Persia. Prior to 1967, France was the primary arms supplier to Israel, and it was only during the 1970s that the firm geopolitical alliance between America and Israel was struck. Although since that time, the United States has done much to establish Israel as the regional hegemon, this was true even earlier due to the weakness of her Arab neighbours.
Israel's actions seem uncouth to much of the world, because her military strength and existential insecurity co-exist comfortably, and the reactions of insecure powerhouses are always problematic. Israel's very history perpectuates her identity as a nation under siege, and these impressions last long after tangible physical dangers have passed.
"From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours," - Complete fabrication. There was a complete weapon embargo on Israel in 1948, its army was a lot weaker than the 6 huge Arab nations attacking it. It was expected that the Arabs would win and their defeat came as a great shock. The next 2 wars weren't different, though to be fair we were able to buy weapon, had more money, and had more time to organize. Israel was threatened with its complete destruction by all her surrounding countries a lot of times.
The Egyptians had a huge air force before 1967 and the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Iraqis had a lot more tanks than Israel as well. NOT a "rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies". It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel - you are fabricating the truth.
"Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional.
I think you are misunderstanding him, though considering his language that's not exactly strange. What he (on the military issue) said was very much in agreement with what you posted. Namely that Israel in 1948 in no way was materially surprerior yet the attacking arabs were defeated relatively easily, thus Israels' "fighting ability" far surpassed that of the surounding nations. The same goes for the second part, read his post again and you will realize that you are saying the same thing; the israelis managed to win versus much larger armies simply by being better soldiers. As it stands Israel isn't threatened anymore, I can understand that the people living there _feel_ threatened due to the history of the nation but Israel of today is powerful enough that no nation on earth can touch her. Yes there are obvious and irrelevant exceptions.
their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists
"In Hapardes (Year 11, Issue 7) Rabbi Pardes describes what he saw at the Convention: “Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a “Jewish State” on either side of the Jordan River, even if it were established as a religious state because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Messiah, and especially since this little “Jewish” state would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d." -Jews against Zionism
Israel is a product of zionism. Initially most jews were not zionist and many opposed zionism and the creation of Israel.
Interesting how none is pointing out that after the peace hamas and israel made the last time, israeli soldiers blocked gaza so no food, nor medicine could enter it. Is that the way someone respects the peace? And there were no rocket attacks during those 6 months, and as hamas saw that none is reacting to israeli dirty play, the decided to attack. Its the fucking same politics the usa uses. Both USA and Israel make the things look like they are the victims so they have to defend. but hey the usa is cotrolled by israel and all the biggest Tv stations like bbc and so are pro-jew so that's it. and i dont remember who said it but gratz to that guy: does anyone defend by attacking other country, incredible! and the ppl believe to that fairy tales, xD
You are right that the "Palestinian nation" is an artificial nation created to destroy the Jewish presence in Israel. To say that the opposite is just as much true is plain non sense, Israel was created to be a place for Jews all over the world. The Jews are not a fictive nation they weren't invented in the 19th century and their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists.. When the Germans could not read or write our extensive foundation as a people was already set and at its core the wish to return to Israel and to Jerusalem and build it anew. Adding Latin to it doesn't make it more valid.
There is a practical difference between Jews as a nation, religion or tribe, and zionism as an ideology. By the 19th century most countries of Central and Western Europe had emancipated the Jewish minority, and the majority of Jews saw themselves as nationals of the respective states into which they had assimilated first and foremost. The largest exception, the Jews of the Russian Empire, had overwhelmingly elected to emigrate, if at all, to Western Europe and the United States during the the reign of Alexander III. The intellectual basis of revived Jewish nationalism coincided with the development of European nationalisms of the 19th century. It is telling that Theodore Herzl developed his zionist institutions after a periodic flirtation with German romantic nationalism. The dispossession of European Jews after the Second World War was instrumental to the growth of Israel; had the holocaust never occurred, the Jews of Europe would have remained tied to their respective host nations.
For decades, after the Second World War, American Jews remained ignorant and even apathetic to the plight of Jews in Europe and what only in the 70s came to be popularly called the holocaust. The sense of dispossession and national exclusivity which affected European Jews in 1945 had no resonance in the United States. The majority of Jews in the world today inhabit the Western Hemisphere, and the majority are positively not zionists; many are leading critics of Israel and Zionism. Regarding Israel as an eternal union from the covenant of Abraham through the diaspora and up until the present time ignores the psychological realities of what has happened to the descendants of the original race.
As for the artificiality of Palestine, I am indifferent to what constitutes a artificial or real nation. A nation is a group of people who think that they are one people, exclusive of superior identities. That a nation defines itself based on geographical and political criterion rather than the organic processes of community built upon the ages is rather besides the point. The British, the French, the Germans had all existed in one form or another for over a thousand years, but it was not until around two hundred years ago that their sense of nationhood was sufficiently developed to supercede their feudal, communal, or tribal ties.
"From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours,"
I am going to assume that your English is far from perfect, so I will only reiterate that I do not refer to fighting ability in terms of numerical, or even material strength.
It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel
On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership.
The only Israel-Arab war with the direct purpose of destroying "Israel" was the 1948 war. The 1967 war had a diplomatic casus belli in the passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran. The Egyptian objective in the 1973 war was the reversal of the losses suffered in the 1967 war. Israel took the initiative to attack Egypt in 1956 and Lebanon in 1982, in neither case was Israel's "survival" in jeopardy.
"Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional.
Deductive reasoning requires the the fulfillment of relevant premises to reach their conclusions. Even if I thought whatever you're saying I thought, that is only one premise, and by itself, holds nothing apart from the premise itself.
In any case, the role of the Israeli army itself confirms what you deny. The primary objectives of the IDF has shifted in the past decades from a war-making force to a policing force. There is no physical threat to Israel but terrorists; and terrorists are not an existential threat.
On January 06 2009 08:12 larrysbird wrote: Arabs are descendants of Ishmael while Jews are for Isaac. As far as I can remember they're already fighting in the old times.
Yeah if they just settled this by killing off one of them back then when no one cared there would be no porblems! =p
On January 06 2009 09:26 MoltkeWarding wrote: On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership.
Moltke, your eloquence dazzles me as always, but I must take issue with this. I had to look up "autochthon", but having done so: the Arabs are not "the earliest known inhabitants" of Palestine, nor were they the ones who controlled the land when Jews began to settle there in greater numbers (there was a Jewish presence in Palestine, albeit a small one, for thousands of years, predating the arrival of the Arabs, in fact, which in itself is a significant reason to view your appellation "colonialism" as a mischaracterization). Before the British, there were the Turks; before the Turks, it is true, there were the Sultans, but if you go back far enough, before the Sultans (and the Byzantine/Roman Empire) there was a Jewish kingdom. Arabs were a majority population for a long time, but they were not the original inhabitants nor the ruling government when Jews began to settle in numbers. Moreover, the Arabs initiated the 1948 war, so I don't see how you can call that a war of colonialism.
well, moltke is finally on the ball with this one. drawing an allusion to colonial era warfare is not necessarily saying that the political situation is one of colonialism, although there are arguments to be made on that front as well.
On January 06 2009 09:26 MoltkeWarding wrote: On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership.
Moltke, your eloquence dazzles me as always, but I must take issue with this. I had to look up "autochthon", but having done so: the Arabs are not "the earliest known inhabitants" of Palestine, nor were they the ones who controlled the land when Jews began to settle there in greater numbers (there was a Jewish presence in Palestine, albeit a small one, for thousands of years, predating the arrival of the Arabs, in fact, which in itself is a significant reason to view your appellation "colonialism" as a mischaracterization). Before the British, there were the Turks; before the Turks, it is true, there were the Sultans, but if you go back far enough, before the Sultans (and the Byzantine/Roman Empire) there was a Jewish kingdom. Arabs were a majority population for a long time, but they were not the original inhabitants nor the ruling government when Jews began to settle in numbers. Moreover, the Arabs initiated the 1948 war, so I don't see how you can call that a war of colonialism.
If we consider the territory of the Palestine as a whole, the crescendo of Jewish immigrations largely occurred after 1880. In 1948, the Jewish population of the Palestine amounted to approximately 600 000 people, or one-third of the total population between the sea and the river Jordan. The majority of these were first or second generation immigrants extracted from Europe. Prior to circa 1900, the Jewish population in the Palestine was not only smaller than the Arab majority, but also than the Christian minority. The demographic trends of the Palestine show that sometime after the expulsion of the Crusaders in the 12th century, the Arab population has been the demographic majority in the Palestine, outnumbering the Jews by at least ten-to-one until the late 19th century.
Now, the last period when the Jews were a majority presence in the same territory prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948, was at the time of the sac of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In 70 AD, the Celts were the British, the Bretons were British Celts, the English were Southern Baltic Germans, the Germans were spread in various tribes between the Rhine and the Volga, we don't know where the Slavs were during this time, so it would be impossible to assign them a legitimate homeland, but in Western Russia were Germanic Goths, to the immediate East of the Germans were the scythians, to the Northwest, Finns, and in Finland, Lapps, to their east, Huns. We don't know who was in Hungary at this time, but several centuries later it was traversed by the Vandals and the Goths. France was Gallic, the French were Western Germans. North Africans were semitic colonists sprung from Phonecia, Arabs were creatures confined to the Arabian deserts, and no one apart from the Mormons knows what was happening in the Americas during this time.
Linguists speculate that we all emerge from somewhere near the Caspian sea area, palentologists speculate that we may stem from Africa, Biblical archeologists infer the original location of the Garden of Eden to be near the Persian Gulf.
Perhaps the Arabs were not the Urfolk of the Palestine, but neither are Jews, since their own myths relate that they were led to that land by Moses, on the promise of God. What is the criteria for an eternal bond between blood and soil? Is it established through religious covenant? Is it the cultivation of land? Is it the construction of more complex systems of society rooted in the land? Is it the right of conquest by the stronger peoples? Using the term judiciously, what I suppose I meant by autochthon is this: the nation with the longest continuous roots in a certain territory, and having displaced the prior occupants beyond a reasonable span of memory.
If you see the war of 1948 from the Arabs' perspective, that of the Israelis as a settler nation, which they were at that time, it's easy to infer the sources of their anger at relinquishing land to the newer population.
On January 06 2009 11:18 MoltkeWarding wrote: If you see the war of 1948 from the Arabs' perspective, that of the Israelis as a settler nation, which they were at that time, it's easy to infer the sources of their anger at relinquishing land to the newer population.
OK, although your historical overview was very interesting, let's focus on the brass tacks: relinquishing land. What precisely do you mean by this? I see several possibilities.
-Do you mean relinquishing political control of the land? I am sure you don't mean that, as the Arabs had not had political control themselves since the Ottoman conquest centuries before.
-Do you mean physical displacement? If so, when, and by what means? Certainly before 1948 there could be no question of Jews taking land by military force. Perhaps, then, you refer to Jews moving into land that they had bought from some absentee landlord, which had previously been occupied by Arabs.
-Perhaps you refer to physical displacement after 1948. There is still a lot of controversy over whether and/or to what extent Jews encouraged/intimidated Arabs into fleeing in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Certainly it is true that Arabs who had fled were not always allowed to reclaim their old property.
-Finally, perhaps you refer to political control after all, your argument being that, although the Arabs had not actually had political control of the land, they felt that it should be given to them, the majority-inhabitants of the region for many years, as you point out, rather than to the Jews, most of whom were relative newcomers.
There is room for discussion on all these points, but which one or ones of them did you mean when you said "relinquishing land"? Or did you have something else in mind?
Recall that after the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire, the territory was not annexed to the crown possessions of Great Britain, but held in mandated trusteeship. Trusteeship was further subdivided under the mandate by degrees in which the inhabitants were deemed capable of early transition into self-government. The Palestine, along with Syria-Lebanon, the Transjordan, and Iraq were listed as class A Mandates, and as such occupied political statuses considerably different from colonies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate#Class_A_mandates
Iraq and Egypt had obtained independence prior to the Second World War (although they were occupied during the course of the war) and all other Arab states in the Middle East were granted independence after the war. Of course, it's true that the primary targets of terrorism in Palestine was anti-British during this period, but the claims of Arab independence was by then almost universally recognized.
The historical occupancy of the land by Arabs is their basis for claiming the entire territory of the Palestine as Arab territory, but even taking into account the presence of the then-large Jewish minority, the partition plan of 1948 was flawed on geographical and demographic lines, placing 407 000 Arabs along with 498 000 Jews within the Jewish demarcation lines. The partition placed over a third of the Palestinian Arabs population under Israeli government. I do not claim that the Arab reactions would have been different given a more equitable partition line, but allotting the State of Israel a majority share of Palestinian territory when they physically occupied sporadic settlements certainly did not ease the deal.
Nor am I being a partisan. I am simply inferring that there were reasonable causes behind anti-Israeli sentiment since the birth of Israel, just as I recognize the gravity of Hebrew religion on Israeli perspectives, but I would all the same not expect Arabs to endorse the idea of a Jewish state simply because God promised Moses in the Torah.
You write a lot No way I'll have the time to respond to all of it.
You are right that the Zionism of Herzl is very different from what was (and is) considered Judaism. His goal was to create a normal western place where Jews can be protected from their constant persecutions. He didn't want anything to do with the Jews as a unique nation. What he wanted was to be "a nation like all other nations" meaning an ordinary western country for the persecuted Jews.
"The sense of dispossession and national exclusivity which affected European Jews in 1945 had no resonance in the United States." - Jewish US organizations provided the largest financial and political assistance to post-war Jews. These organizations also donated the most to Israel before and after the holocaust. You write very eloquently as if you are an encyclopedia but you state many things which are plain wrong.
"Regarding Israel as an eternal union from the covenant of Abraham through the diaspora and up until the present time ignores the psychological realities of what has happened to the descendants of the original race." ? we all know the psychological realities of constant persecution for 2000 years. We also know that amazingly the Jewish people survived and kept its identity in an unbelievable manner. reads the same Torah and Talmud, has the same Halacha, speaks the same language(especially after 19th century revival of Hebrew) and prays the exact same words said after the Temple was destructed by the long gone Romans. If anything the "psychological realities" make it even more phenomenal that the Jews are back in Israel after 2000 years.
"On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership."
Colonialism is essentially a system of direct political, economic, and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one.
There is no fucking way you are saying the war that 6 huge Arab nations waged on the tiny Jewish population (which was backed by no powerful country in 1948) without any prior threat to their land and with the open goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jews is colonialism on the Jews side. It makes no sense no matter how eloquently you try and write it.
The only Israel-Arab war with the direct purpose of destroying "Israel" was the 1948 war. The 1967 war had a diplomatic casus belli in the passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran. The Egyptian objective in the 1973 war was the reversal of the losses suffered in the 1967 war.
Also wrong, the 1967 war started after the Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian entire armies were placed on the Israeli borders with the open goal of destroying Israel. They even created a radio station to terrorize the Israelis prior to their attack. That went along with the closing of the Straits of Tiran for Israeli ships. They miscalculated that Israel will not wait until the actual attacks and they paid for it with a huge defeat.
You are naive if you think that in 1973 the Arabs wanted just to take back what was taken in 1967.
"There is no physical threat to Israel but terrorists; and terrorists are not an existential threat." - both claims are wrong. there are several countries in the middle east who have hostile population, dictatorial regimes and a history of trying to destroy Israel. The huge terror organization Hizbollah and the well funded Hamas was created by Iran, funded by Iran and trained by Iran.
No country in the middle east currently have the need to take the risk of attacking Israel but they are still a threat. Given enough time terrorism combined with internal problems can certainly destroy a country like Israel.
"On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership."
Colonialism is essentially a system of direct political, economic, and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one.
There is no fucking way you are saying the war that 6 huge Arab nations waged on the tiny Jewish population (which is backed by NO powerful country) without any prior threat to their land and with the open goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jews is colonialism on the Jews side. It makes no sense no matter how eloquently you try and write it.
Great posts both of you. I just read the last page, but really high quality. I just wanted to interject with something that may or may not be relevant.
Many Palestinians and members of the West Bank consider Israel's continual domination of their territory (backed by US support/aid) colonialism. If we consider Israel and the entire "holy land" the relevant region of conflict, it is Israel's militaristic domination of the relevant region is what people consider "colonialism." I think many "arabs" (I object to that world, but that is not really the argument) animosity for Jews, especially those of Israel, starts with their domination, mistreatment of Palestinians, and colonization of "Palestine." This is just a side point, but I don't think you can ignore the effect of US and European open militaristic backing of Israel. One cannot just say "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population," it is really "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population with the militaristic and economic support from the superpowers of the world"
I think it comes back to the central problem of what we believe ex-ante... that is, if we believe that it is Israel's right to their land, it is not colonialism because they are defending themselves against hostile nation(s). If ex-ante we believe, that Palestinians and "Arabs" have a right to their land then it is certainly colonialism from their perspective. Regardless, keep it coming it is good reading.
"On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership."
Colonialism is essentially a system of direct political, economic, and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one.
There is no fucking way you are saying the war that 6 huge Arab nations waged on the tiny Jewish population (which is backed by NO powerful country) without any prior threat to their land and with the open goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jews is colonialism on the Jews side. It makes no sense no matter how eloquently you try and write it.
Great posts both of you. I just read the last page, but really high quality. I just wanted to interject with something that may or may not be relevant.
Many Palestinians and members of the West Bank consider Israel's continual domination of their territory (backed by US support/aid) colonialism. If we consider Israel and the entire "holy land" the relevant region of conflict, it is Israel's militaristic domination of the relevant region is what people consider "colonialism." I think many "arabs" (I object to that world, but that is not really the argument) animosity for Jews, especially those of Israel, starts with their domination, mistreatment of Palestinians, and colonization of "Palestine." This is just a side point, but I don't think you can ignore the effect of US and European open militaristic backing of Israel. One cannot just say "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population," it is really "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population with the militaristic and economic support from the superpowers of the world"
I think it comes back to the central problem of what we believe ex-ante... that is, if we believe that it is Israel's right to their land, it is not colonialism because they are defending themselves against hostile nation(s). If ex-ante we believe, that Palestinians and "Arabs" have a right to their land then it is certainly colonialism from their perspective. Regardless, keep it coming it is good reading.
Only after 1967 we started receiving large American support. In 1948 there was a weapon embargo by the US on Israel, there was literally no military support from the superpowers of the world.
But that is not the issue. "Neutrally" observing the situation means quite nothing and there is no description of history which isn't biased through the eyes of the historian.
Israel has an historic right to be in Judea and Samaria even more than it has to be in Tel Aviv. We took that land in a war that was forced upon us, from countries who conquered it in 48 Jordan, Syria and Egypt. There is no reason we should return it to them, Jerusalem and Hebron belong to the Jewish people a whole lot more than to the Jordanians who occupied it for 20 years.
The tragedy was that we didn't deal with the problem straight after 1967. We should have added all Judea and Samaria officially to Israel and explained to the Arab population that they can live peacefully as a minority in Israel but if they oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state they can do it from a different country.
Looking at the larger scope of things, ironically by nurturing the "Palestinian" hope we created a war that cannot be ended unless Israel is destroyed or the "Palestinian" hope for a country is greatly diminished. The definition of "Palestine" is to create a country instead of Israel and bring about Israel's destruction. If they would have genuinely wanted a country for their "Palestinian" identity they would have asked the Jordanian conqueror and the Egyptian conqueror for a country, after all the PLO was formed some years before 1967 and what is called the "occupied territories" meaning Judea, Samaria and Gaza was then occupied by Jordan and Egypt.
On January 05 2009 08:16 afg-warrior wrote: people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
That's a lie. We have been supplying food, electricity, water, humanitarian aid and a lot of money for the whole period before the operation. They only stopped it for a day here and there when the Hamas fired more than usual. Egypt on the other hand has closed its checkpoint completely not allowing the "innocent" Palestinians to find shelter in Egypt while the operation is going on and stopping humanitarian aid.
Two weeks before the operation the Israeli government transferred 100 Million $ to the Hamas, while the rockets continued to fall. If that's not treason, what is? BTW if the Palestinians would use the money they get to better the life of their civilians instead of using it all on weapons and terror, they would be in a better situation.
lol thats why there is a massive shortage at every Palestinian hospital? the point is israel regulates everything that goes into gaza. if thats not a clusterfuck of a huge "FU your my bitch" gesture than no one knows what is. lol.
all independent and UN observers were stating that there was a humanitarian crisis in gaza and it has just gotten a shit load worse
On January 05 2009 08:16 afg-warrior wrote: people have failed to mention that gaza has been under siege for a long time. the people are starving because of the blockade and their is little to no humanitarian aid and it is regulated by israel. the people either die to starvation or they begin to a little nuts and start firing rockets at israel hopelessly believing the blockade/siege well end.
I'm pretty sure the blockade and siege is due to the break down a cease fire. Why not work on internal improvements instead of lets play hide and go seek with our missiles and the Israeli air force. Can't say they are planning to win.
its been going on way before the ceasefire
On January 05 2009 12:46 daz wrote: While it is true that Israel's blockade of Gaza is driving them to fire rockets and respond harshly, can you blame Israel for enforcing that blockade after the people in Gaza freely elected Hamas, an organization whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and actively attempts to act towards that purpose. I don't see why Israel should be expected to have any dealings at all with that country, much less provide them aid. Since most of you here are from the United States, let me use an example that will be easy to understand. Imagine that here in Canada we elected Al-Queida to power. How do you imagine the American government would respond to that?
blame democracy and the fact that hamas has been the only political group that is able to make law and enforce it legitimately. and the fact that the people of palestine have been killed and fucked over by a 10 ta 1 ratio since day 1.
if the question is merely one of land then we would not see the level of extremism displayed by both sides, but especially the palestinians. for the latter, the deeper source of their passion is the (perceived) effect of israel on their lives. they live in squalid conditions, perpetuated by israeli actions and general political strife, and their economy is pretty terrible, all the while israel is flourishing with the aid of american money and resources.
war stinks. I dont quite understand what's going on. but i have simpler solution. y not divde the Gaza strip in half? The part where the hamas people leave can be part of Palestine, and the Isreal can have its share. wats so hard about compromising..
Obviously this issue is sensitive for many people, and the nature of our international forum means people have different views, experiences, and opinions. For this reason it is important to be respectful of others in this thread.
The following are unacceptable posts for a thread of this nature:
On January 05 2009 13:02 iloveoil wrote: Curse those dirty arabs for fighting back against their oppressors
This adds nothing other than a flammatory opinion.
On January 05 2009 23:43 Velr wrote: I wonder how long the western world will actually still care about this stuff... I mean, it only bores me and i actually don't care the slightest anymore about either side.
Retards, both sides.
lol thats exactly how whole ur country acts, they just dosent seem to care. that might be safe but in the end
This is unacceptable country bashing.
On January 06 2009 00:36 Velr wrote: Btw: Poland obviously had never someone to talk to... Or what should i get from your extremly stupid argument against neutrality? Rather occupied than neutral?
On December 30 2008 19:55 jjun212 wrote: I've been trying to read up on this recently because for as long as I could remember, this conflict has been going on and been publicized quite a lot. I have also met and have a lot of friends that are from both sides of the conflict.
I just don't get it... but I don't think I ever could unless I was an Israeli or a Palestinian who has experienced first hand what has been going on there.
Sigh..
The short history is that Israel used to be Palestine. Palestine was seized and made a colony of by the British Empire. By WWII, the British had promised the Palestinians independence if they fought for the allies in the war. The Palestinians fought, but the British renegged on their promise and, along with America, gave most of Palestine to a brand new state called Israel and invited all the Jews of the world to go move there. Nobody seemed to notice or care that the Palestinians already lived there. America then armed Israel to the teeth and supported them economically while they fought a few wars with all their neighbours and tried as best as they could to get more land than they were given in 1947. Native Palestinians were persecuted, excluded from the seats of power and even much free engagement in society, etc. Naturally this left them with few prospects to work or be productive members of the society that used to be theirs. Pushed into poverty and a position of desperation by a massively overpowering Israel, they started doing the only thing they could do - fight back. Foreigners came in, took their land, took their homes and their rights. There's not much to say after that. Now they get a barren, wasted strip of what used to be theirs and they're expected to remain happy. It would seem they feel this not an equitable solution, and who could blame them?
*sneeze*
Sorry, i'm allergic to bullshit
This is not an acceptable way to respond to someone's effort.
On January 06 2009 08:18 Magibon wrote: terrorists instigate problems then whines about being raped.
Inflammatory, and adds nothing to the conversation.
On January 04 2009 08:50 purgerinho wrote: israeli scum... they are like nazis and i hope they will end just like nazis..
Inflammatory, and adds nothing to the conversation.
The final two posts here have warrented bans. I really don't want to have to come back to this thread.
It's a rather well done dismantling of Samuel P. Huntington's thesis, you should watch it.
I watched it. I does very little of dismantling, and even less of presenting concrete points to support its own conclusions.
So this Samuel Huntington guy apparently says that if the west wants to stay strong it has to "Exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to western values and interests ... to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate western western interests and values, and to promote the involvement of non-western states in those institutions."
That is absolutely not cool. He is literally suggesting that the west promote the very conflict this thread is about! and arguably, that is exactly what we are doing.
I had, before now, sincerely believed that the USA was a force for peace and good in the world, and that organizations like the UN, WTO and IMF were there for the purpose of promoting a peaceful world were open trade can lead to unprecedented prosperity. I believed that the criticisms of those organizations - that they were just puppets espousing western values - were just the empty mutterings of bitter men who wanted one culture - theirs - to reign supreme in what was becoming a planet of pluralism.
but to hear those activities we have been accused of suggested not by our critics, but by an American! And to find out that other Americans are taking this man seriously! And to see my country taking actions that look suspiciously like the ones described by Samuel Huntington in that essay...
This must be how Zeratul felt when he found that Raszagal had been irrevocably corrupted by Kerrigan.
On January 07 2009 08:12 Dalroti wrote: i appose war.
war stinks. I dont quite understand what's going on. but i have simpler solution. y not divde the Gaza strip in half? The part where the hamas people leave can be part of Palestine, and the Isreal can have its share. wats so hard about compromising..
What the fuck? I'm not trying to flame or anything but did you read yourself after writing this? Either you're on drugs or you have some serious issues with the english language. By the way, before you bring your solution to everything, maybe you should learn how to spell Israel.
It's a lunatic state, just like the Apartheid regime in their dying days.
Its not a lunatic state. Likud -- the ruling party -- and Hamas are engaged in a mutual beneficial theater at the cost of their respective peoples. Likud has used the excuse of the kidnappings to undermine the recent Hamas-Fatah unity government -- the unity government which by the way accepted Fatah's policy of recognizing Israel in order to survive -- and build up domestic political support for right wing factions. Hamas is trying to recapture its role as the 'front line' resistance to 'colonialism' or whatever in the Arab world. Between Hamas being cut of by Damascus-Iran because it doesnt more explicitly support Asad's regime and being cut off by the Mosri Egyptian regime for not supporting the rebels AND all the success of various ISlamists in Iraq and Syria the Hamas were finally broke. Their deal with Fatah would have brought in Fatah moneys to keep Hamas' staff paid -- which for the first time they have failed to do this year.
So Netanyahu gets to break up any kind of Palestinian reconciliation, gets a natural war boost. Hamas gets a lot of sympathetic press and more Gulf money its way that previously was going to Syria.
Its actually awfully rational from both sides. As long as we exclude the fact that either want a 'long lasting/just' peace.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/DEATHTOZIONISTJUICE.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/181B91B2-BDF3-4BC2-AA23-59C4D8816F87/0/wounded20017.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.adders.org/gazza.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Quassam_rockets.jpg/800px-)
![[image loading]](http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5174/swasiaq4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2.jpg)
