ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

RELEVANCE TO ISRAEL

Jews obtained their ownership of their territory by conquering just like Texans, Americans and Arabs did.

1000 BC: Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except
................Philistra and Phoenicia).
0950 BC: Solomon King of Israel.
0721 BC: Israel conquered, but Judaea Continues.
0516 BC: 2nd Temple in Judaea.
0333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers
................Palestine.
0161 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to
................conquer All Palestine Plus.
0135 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
0040 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
0073 AD: Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.
0638 AD: Arabs conquer Jerusalem.
1099 AD: Crusaders conquer Palestine.
1187 AD: Saladin conquers Palestine.
1229 AD: Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD: Turks conquer Palestine.
1516 AD: Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD: Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD: Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD: British Ambassador to Egypt Promises
................Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD: British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises
................Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
................British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD: 5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1921 AD: 46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1929 AD: 133 Jews killed 339 wounded
................116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936 thru 39 AD: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded
.........................3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
............................135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
............................110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish
................and an Arab State.
1948 AD: State of Israel declares independence
................War breaks out between defending Jews
................and invading Arabs.
................State of Israel sucessfully defends itself and
................conquers part of Arab Palestine.

There was this Lebanese kid and he was bleeding to death from having a limb blown off from a cluster bomb and his father, holding him close, expressed empathy for the child's inconceivable level of pain and for his short existence here on earth but also reminding the child that all of this ought to be considered in the context of it being a non-targeted, collateral event.

The blame is on Lebanon for letting Hezbollah control the south and for letting a proxy of Iran run free in their nation. Israel didnt start it. Israel had a right to defend itself when attacked.

No dear. You really should learn the difference between sarcasm and straw man. There is a huge difference even if English isn't your first language.

Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony - stating the opposite of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's awful". It is often used in a humorous manner and is expressed through vocal intonations such as over-emphasizing the actual statement or particular words. Use of sarcasm is sometimes viewed as an expression of concealed anger.

And my sarcasm relates directly to my point that all of you who so soundly criticize, even condemn Israel, have yet to clearly articulate what Israel IS allowed to do to defend itself against up to 4000 rockets being fired frm Lebanon over a period of weeks.

Foxfyre wrote:

No dear. You really should learn the difference between sarcasm and straw man. There is a huge difference even if English isn't your first language.

Yes dear, you're right. There's a huge difference.

wikipedia wrote:

Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony - stating the opposite of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's awful". It is often used in a humorous manner and is expressed through vocal intonations such as over-emphasizing the actual statement or particular words. Use of sarcasm is sometimes viewed as an expression of concealed anger.

I assume that if you're saying that your post was meant to be sarcastic, that your real beliefs are the opposite of what you said?

If that is not the case, I'll maintain my POV that you just propped up a strawman because you're unable to contest the arguments of those who don't believe that Israel has the right to use whatever means it wants to.

Foxfyre wrote:

And my sarcasm relates directly to my point that all of you who so soundly criticize, even condemn Israel, have yet to clearly articulate what Israel IS allowed to do to defend itself against up to 4000 rockets being fired frm Lebanon over a period of weeks.

Israel is allowed to do everything necessary within the limits of the Geneva Conventions.

I assume you won't acknowledge the point that Israel's military action was a direct response to 2 soldiers being kidnapped, and not to 4000 rockets fired from the Lebanon, right?

According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.

Why? Because nothing Hizbollah was doing conformed to the Geneva Convention. Israel therefore had to do what it did to stop the attacks, or do nothing. Since what it did is apparently not acceptable to anybody, what else could Israel have done that would be acceptable? Saying that it could do ANYTHING allowed by the Geneva Convention doesn't quite cut it in this situation. What would the Geneva Convention allow that would have stopped the rocket attacks?

And no, I won't agree that Israel's actions were ONLY in response to two soldiers being kidnapped. Israel's initial action WAS in response to two soldiers being kidnapped. All subsequent activity by Israel was in response to Hizbollah firing rockets into Israel's residential neighborhoods for the admitted intent of killing or injuring as many civilians as possible.

All of you who keep saying the Geneva Convention must be followed, but allowing Israel no means to do that AND defend itself seem to be saying that Israel has no recourse but just allow itself to be exteriminated.

[size=26]Jewish rabbi calls for extermination of all Palestinian male[/size]

IMEMC & Agencies - Monday, 18 September 2006, 14:29


A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth.

Extremist rabbi Yousef Falay, who dwells at the Yitzhar settlement on illegally seized Palestinian land in the northern part of the West Bank, wrote an article in a Zionist magazine under the title "Ways of War", in which he called for the killing of all Palestinian males refusing to flee their country, describing his idea as the practical way to ensure the non-existence of the Palestinian race.

"We have to make sure that no Palestinian individual remains under our occupation. If they (Palestinians) escape then it is good; but if anyone of them remains, then he should be exterminated", the fanatic rabbi added in his article.

Falay is not the first to have called for such extreme measures. Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Kach movement, called for "the transfer of Israel's Arab population to Arab (or other) lands." (As it states on the group's website). Followers of Kahane have been connected to a number of murders of Palestinians, particularly in the Hebron area in the southern West Bank. In the most well-known of such attacks, 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron were gunned down by Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Kahane, in 1994, with Israeli soldiers looking on and allowing the gunman to reload his automatic machine gun and continue killing innocent civilians. In response to that massacre, the Israeli authorities punished the Palestinian victims by taking over the Ibrahimi mosque and turning half of it into a synagogue, where Israeli settlers go to pray each week. And each year, on the anniversary of the massacre, Israeli settlers in Hebron dress up like Baruch Goldstein and parade through the streets of Hebron, firing guns in the air.

The Kach movement recognizes the 'transfer' of 750,000 Palestinians that took place in 1948 in order for the state of Israel to be created on their land, but argues on their website that this 'transfer' was incomplete, and that all Palestinians must be sent away, or killed, in order for Israel to remain a 'Jewish state'. Their platform reads, "In a genuinely 'JEWISH State', how can an Arab be an equal when that State has an Independence Day celebrating his defeat. Its flag isn't that of its people. He isn't trusted to serve in the army. His cousin born in Haifa [sic] and fled during the 1948 War of Independence cannot return... yet any Jew who never lived there before is welcomed with open arms. In short, Israel is his enemy's country, not his. So how can an Arab truly be a loyal citizen in a Jewish State? Simply, they cannot, and they must go!"

The idea of extermination of Palestinians, or their 'transfer' into other countries, is not only a view held by extremists on the fringes of society. Prominent Israeli politicians have also made calls for a 'transfer', or ethnic cleansing, based on race. Just last week, on September 11, 2006, an Israeli member of Parliament called explicitly for the transfer of Palestinians (whow he referred to as 'Arabs') from the West Bank (which he referred to as 'Judea and Samaria', the biblical name for the region where the majority of Palestinians now live).

"We have to expel most Arabs from Judea and Samaria," Eitam said at a memorial service for Lt. Amihai Merhavia, a soldier who was killed in South Lebanon in July. "We can't deal with all these Arabs, and we can't give up the territory, because we've already seen what they do there. Some of them might have to stay under certain conditions, but most of them will have to go." Despite a law that would strip Israeli parliament members of their immunity to prosecution if they are found make explicitly racist statements, no investigation of Eitam has occurred on this matter, and there was no condemnation of his statement by the Israeli government.


http://www.imemc.org/content/view/21527/1/

Foxfyre wrote:

According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.

Yeah? Well, not me. And it's very unlikely that most of the posters who oppose your point of view have ever stated something like that.

In fact, until you can provide links to the posts of several members who have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not", I will call this above statement of yours yet another straw man.

I don't have to provide links. I can just ask you to show me anything you have recommended that Israel should have done to stop the rocket attacks. Then show me posts from the other critics of Israel who have given any specific suggestion of what would have been permissable to have stopped those attacks. I get empty stuff like 'just follow the Geneva Convention' or "just stop shooting at Hizbollah and they would stop shooting at Israel'. So far not one of you have suggested what Israel could do about a rocket launcher set up in a heavily populated residential neighborhood.

Foxfyre wrote:

Why? Because nothing Hizbollah was doing conformed to the Geneva Convention. Israel therefore had to do what it did to stop the attacks, or do nothing. Since what it did is apparently not acceptable to anybody, what else could Israel have done that would be acceptable? Saying that it could do ANYTHING allowed by the Geneva Convention doesn't quite cut it in this situation. What would the Geneva Convention allow that would have stopped the rocket attacks?

We've already established that Hezbollah violated the Geneva Conventions. You've failed to show how it therefore became necessary for Israel to violate the Geneva Conventions, too. You've failed to show how the course Israel took was the only possible reaction to the kidnapping, and to rockets being fired into Israeli territory, too.

I have failed to show how the course Israel was taking was the only possible reaction to the kidnapping and to the rockets being fired into Israeli territory because I can't think of anything they could do other than what they did. I further think they showed amazing restraint and they did minimize civilian deaths as best they could in the process. They would have been far more effective had they not attempted to minimize civilian injuries and death. In fact, that little war would have been over in a matter of hours or at least days if Israel had not pulled its punches.

So I'm saying what they did was reasonable. I would have preferred they have used overwhelming force so that there would have been a undisputable winner and the possibility of peace in the aftermath.

So again, I ask, what would you say Israel was allowed to do to stop the rocket attacks AND follow the dictates of the Geneva Convention?

Foxfyre wrote:

And no, I won't agree that Israel's actions were ONLY in response to two soldiers being kidnapped. Israel's initial action WAS in response to two soldiers being kidnapped. All subsequent activity by Israel was in response to Hizbollah firing rockets into Israel's residential neighborhoods for the admitted intent of killing or injuring as many civilians as possible.

Says who? Got a link for that, or anything? Or just your opinion?

Says me and dozens and dozens of links from very credible sources that are incorporated into this thread. If you didn't read them, I suggest you go back and do so.

Foxfyre wrote:

All of you who keep saying the Geneva Convention must be followed, but allowing Israel no means to do that AND defend itself seem to be saying that Israel has no recourse but just allow itself to be exteriminated.

Oh, I would allow Israel the means to follow the Geneva Conventions. And the Geneva Conventions do allow Israel to defend itself. Can you show me how following the Geneva Conventions would harm Israel's ability to defend itself, Foxy? Because you haven't done so, so far....

old europe wrote:

In fact, until you can provide links to the posts of several members who have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not", I will call this above statement of yours yet another straw man.

I don't have to provide links.

I can just ask you to show me anything you have recommended that Israel should have done to stop the rocket attacks.

Then show me posts from the other critics of Israel who have given any specific suggestion of what would have been permissable to have stopped those attacks. I get empty stuff like 'just follow the Geneva Convention' or "just stop shooting at Hizbollah and they would stop shooting at Israel'.

So far not one of you have suggested what Israel could do about a rocket launcher set up in a heavily populated residential neighborhood.

I have failed to show how the course Israel was taking was the only possible reaction to the kidnapping and to the rockets being fired into Israeli territory because I can't think of anything they could do other than what they did.

I further think they showed amazing restraint and they did minimize civilian deaths as best they could in the process. They would have been far more effective had they not attempted to minimize civilian injuries and death. In fact, that little war would have been over in a matter of hours or at least days if Israel had not pulled its punches.

So I'm saying what they did was reasonable. I would have preferred they have used overwhelming force so that there would have been a undisputable winner and the possibility of peace in the aftermath.

I'll have to break that down....

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

In fact, until you can provide links to the posts of several members who have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not", I will call this above statement of yours yet another straw man.

I don't have to provide links.

Of course you don't have to. It kind of makes your statement suspicious, but you certainly don't have to provide links....

Foxfyre wrote:

I can just ask you to show me anything you have recommended that Israel should have done to stop the rocket attacks.

Yes, you can. If you do, I'll go back and try to find something.

Foxfyre wrote:

Then show me posts from the other critics of Israel who have given any specific suggestion of what would have been permissable to have stopped those attacks. I get empty stuff like 'just follow the Geneva Convention' or "just stop shooting at Hizbollah and they would stop shooting at Israel'.

See, this is the point: if there's a murderer on the lose, and the police goes out, gets his family and tortures them in order to find out about his whereabouts, I would say they are violating the law. And I don't even have to make intelligent suggestions of better way to find the murderer in order to make that statement.

Foxfyre wrote:

So far not one of you have suggested what Israel could do about a rocket launcher set up in a heavily populated residential neighborhood.

Maybe. But failure to come up with a better solution does not make criticism invalid.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have failed to show how the course Israel was taking was the only possible reaction to the kidnapping and to the rockets being fired into Israeli territory because I can't think of anything they could do other than what they did.

That's quite sad, but at the same time a really bad justification for a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Foxfyre wrote:

I further think they showed amazing restraint and they did minimize civilian deaths as best they could in the process. They would have been far more effective had they not attempted to minimize civilian injuries and death. In fact, that little war would have been over in a matter of hours or at least days if Israel had not pulled its punches.

Well, 1200 people dead, all of Lebanon bombed, over a million people homeless, etc. in reaction to two kidnapped soldiers can of course be interpreted as "showing restraint" if you think the alternative would be nuking Lebanon.

You say Israel could have been "far more effective". Effective at what, Foxy? Getting back the two soldiers? What was the objective of that military adventure?

Foxfyre wrote:

So I'm saying what they did was reasonable. I would have preferred they have used overwhelming force so that there would have been a undisputable winner and the possibility of peace in the aftermath.

That again begs the question as to what the objective would have been. Maybe you think about the complete and utter destruction of Hezbollah? I doubt that will ever happen, at least using military means. Just as it's impossible to end the insurgency in Iraq using military means.

old europe wrote:

I'll have to break that down....

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

In fact, until you can provide links to the posts of several members who have said that "Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not", I will call this above statement of yours yet another straw man.

I don't have to provide links.

Of course you don't have to. It kind of makes your statement suspicious, but you certainly don't have to provide links....

Can't really provide links to posts that haven't been made. You don't seem to understand what a strawman is either. Look it up.

Can't really provide links to posts that haven't been made.

According to members criticizing Israel on this thread, Israel could not do ANYTHING in self defense whether sanctioned by the Geneva Convention or not.

the criticism has no basis in reality other then to bash Israel's response to Hezbollah's continued aggression towards Israel. Unless you can come up with an alternative, your criticism is invalid.

Quote:

That's quite sad, but at the same time a really bad justification for a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Yeah. Which part of the Geneva convention would that be? Foxfyre doesn't seem to be the only one that can't think of anything else they could do either.

Quote:

Well, 1200 people dead, all of Lebanon bombed, over a million people homeless, etc. in reaction to two kidnapped soldiers can of course be interpreted as "showing restraint" if you think the alternative would be nuking Lebanon.

You say Israel could have been "far more effective". Effective at what, Foxy? Getting back the two soldiers? What was the objective of that military adventure?

Yes, they were restrained. You just can't seem to understand that and explaining it is a pointless excercise in futility to you because you don't WANT to understand. But, you are hardly alone on that point.

Israel's failure to damage Hezbollah more then it did may come back to haunt them in the future and will most likely lead to further military interactions between Israel and Lebanon if Lebanon does not try to reign Hezbollah in. That will be up to the insane, bllod-crazed loons that make up the leadership of Hezbollah though if they want to continue with their plans to eradicate Israel. I assure you Israel will not go easily and will fight back.