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

Foxfyre wrote:

But until the level of rhetoric, condemnation, accusation, and censure toward those who regularly commit sins of intentional commission such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups even approach that leveled at Israel, I will continue to think Israel the party more worthy of defense.

I don't see any reason to repeatedly denounce terrorist organizations on this thread in order not to be called a terrorist supporter (or something along those lines). That's ridiculous. I've made it quite clear that, in my opinion, groups like Hams or Hezbollah have committed war crimes.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not retracting without proof that they intentionally fired on somebody they [...] did not deem necessary to a positive outcome of the conflict..

I have a hard time figuring out that triple negative... Let me ask you this in a different manner: do you think the Israeli attack on the German surveillance ship and on the French UNIFIL forces was intentional?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But until the level of rhetoric, condemnation, accusation, and censure toward those who regularly commit sins of intentional commission such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups even approach that leveled at Israel, I will continue to think Israel the party more worthy of defense.

I don't see any reason to repeatedly denounce terrorist organizations on this thread in order not to be called a terrorist supporter (or something along those lines). That's ridiculous. I've made it quite clear that, in my opinion, groups like Hams or Hezbollah have committed war crimes.

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not retracting without proof that they intentionally fired on somebody they [...] did not deem necessary to a positive outcome of the conflict..

I have a hard time figuring out that triple negative... Let me ask you this in a different manner: do you think the Israeli attack on the German surveillance ship and on the French UNIFIL forces was intentional?

So if you feel no need to repeatedly denounce terrorist organizations as you have made quite clear that, in your opinion, groups like Hamas or Hezbollah have committed war crimes, why do you need to repeatedly denounce Israel? And why does your anger and passion seem to be so much more directed at Israel than at the terrorists?

And I don't know whether the attacks on a German surveillance ship or on French UNIFIL forces were intentional or incidents producing unfortunate casualties of war. And neither do you. Without such proof, and as I believe Israel had sufficient provocation for engaging in war, I will give Israel the benefit of the doubt for the reason that they didn't start it if there is no better reason.

We DO know that attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, et al are intentional and intended to produce civilian casualties.

0 Replies

Foxfyre quote:

'but Israel to this day maintains that it was an accident'

It's always an accident, according to Israel. They apologize, then keep on bombing.

How is killing thousands of people in Lebanon justified for Hezbollah/Hamas kidnapping (not killing) a few soldiers? A million people had to evacuate their homes. Have the Israelis ever heard of making the punishment fit the crime? They are all to eager to drop bombs on Lebanon (who did NOT attack Israel first) and Palestine is only reacting to Israel's aggression. They have asked the UN to intervene in Israel's terrorist acts.

It was the Israelis who broke the deal that said Palestinians would equally share the operation of running the Israel government.

Since the beginning of recorded history and well before Moses arrived there were over 700,000 Arabs (they were called Caananites) living in what is now Israel. The Balfour Declaration written up by the Brits gave the Jews the land they call Israel in 1947. Originally they were to be sent to Uganda.

How would you like a bunch of refugees to come to your country and begin killing you, bulldozing your homes, committing acts of terrorism daily, stealing water, restricting access to homes and jobs, even though the land had been yours well before they came? Hell yes I have sympathy for the Palestinians.

It is your Zionist media in the U.S. that tells you otherwise, but the rest of the world has Israel pegged.

Most Europeans side with the Palestinians. Europeans are much more knowledgeable about what is going on in the Middle East because many take their vacations in Tunisia, Luxor, Sinai, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, Lebanon, etc.

If you REALLY wanted to know what's going on, you'd read us.altermedia.info but that might upset your fairytale story that the liars in Washington promulgate.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

...
It was the Israelis who broke the deal that said Palestinians would equally share the operation of running the Israel government.

No, it was the Arabs that broke the deal when they attacked Israel with their declared intention to eliminate Israel, after Israel declared its independence per UN resolution.

Since the beginning of recorded history and well before Moses arrived there were over 700,000 Arabs (they were called Caananites) living in what is now Israel. The Balfour Declaration written up by the Brits gave the Jews the land they call Israel in 1947. Originally they were to be sent to Uganda.

Arabs are people that came from Arabia to conquer Palestine in 638 AD. Caananites, Persians and others were likewise conquered by Arabs in the same century. The UN and not the Brits in the 1947 UN resolution partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

How would you like a bunch of refugees to come to your country and begin killing you, bulldozing your homes, committing acts of terrorism daily, stealing water, restricting access to homes and jobs, even though the land had been yours well before they came? Hell yes I have sympathy for the Palestinians.

It was the other way around. In 638 AD and in 1948 AD, the Arabs came to Palestine and began killing some of its residents there.

It is your Zionist media in the U.S. that tells you otherwise, but the rest of the world has Israel pegged.

The following is excerpted from a different source than the "Zionist media."

Britannica wrote:

2000 BC: First Canaanite Culture.
1400 BC: Eqypt conquers Palestine
1300 BC: First Israelite Culture.
1100 BC: First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).
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: Jerusalem conquered 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.
...
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
................State and into an Arab State.
1948 AD: Jews declare independence and establish the
................State of Israel.
................War breaks out between Jews defending Israel
................and Arabs attempting to invade Israel.
................State of Israel successfully defends itself and
................conquers part of Arab Palestine.

Most Europeans side with the Palestinians. Europeans are much more knowledgeable about what is going on in the Middle East because many take their vacations in Tunisia, Luxor, Sinai, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, Lebanon, etc.

Most Europeans have never been polled about who they side with.

If you REALLY wanted to know what's going on, you'd read us.altermedia.info but that might upset your fairytale story that the liars in Washington promulgate.

Your referenced web site's opinion is just that, an opinion of uncertain credibility.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So if you feel no need to repeatedly denounce terrorist organizations as you have made quite clear that, in your opinion, groups like Hamas or Hezbollah have committed war crimes, why do you need to repeatedly denounce Israel?

I comment on terrorist attacks when it is appropriate. But I don't see what is to be gained from repeating again and again that terrorists commit terrorist acts. In contrast to that, I regard Israel as a modern state, a western style democracy with a system of checks and balances.
What you seem to be arguing is along the lines that I wouldn't be allowed to criticize the police for violating the law in spite of available evidence if I don't simultanously point out that criminals commit crimes.

Foxfyre wrote:

And why does your anger and passion seem to be so much more directed at Israel than at the terrorists?

Seem to be. They is not, though. That's merely your reading.

Foxfyre wrote:

And I don't know whether the attacks on a German surveillance ship or on French UNIFIL forces were intentional or incidents producing unfortunate casualties of war. And neither do you. Without such proof, and as I believe Israel had sufficient provocation for engaging in war, I will give Israel the benefit of the doubt for the reason that they didn't start it if there is no better reason.

From this here I realize that you're not familiar with the recent incidents. No merit in discussing it, then. However, it seems you're quite willing to ignore the news that show in Israel in a rather unfavorable light.

0 Replies

I know it is presumptious to presume to criticize information in the Brittanica, Ican, but I have to take exception to one entry on your otherwise reasonably good list--they left out a few minor occupancies:

It was not the Roman Herod who conquered Jerusalem, but rather the Roman General Pompei. According to Bibical history, Herod, presumed to be a Jew by the Romans (he wasn't but he was close), was allowed to be the titular Jewish King in charge of keeping the resentful Jewish population pacified and in line. The Jews resented Herod as much as the Romans, but he did play a part in governance for awhile.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

They is not

Too late to edit, though....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So if you feel no need to repeatedly denounce terrorist organizations as you have made quite clear that, in your opinion, groups like Hamas or Hezbollah have committed war crimes, why do you need to repeatedly denounce Israel?

I comment on terrorist attacks when it is appropriate. But I don't see what is to be gained from repeating again and again that terrorists commit terrorist acts. In contrast to that, I regard Israel as a modern state, a western style democracy with a system of checks and balances.
What you seem to be arguing is along the lines that I wouldn't be allowed to criticize the police for violating the law in spite of available evidence if I don't simultanously point out that criminals commit crimes.

If you criticized the police who are simply doing their job and seemed to give the criminals a pass in comparison with your criticism of the police, I would be just as critical of your position on that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And why does your anger and passion seem to be so much more directed at Israel than at the terrorists?

Seem to be. They is not, though. That's merely your reading.

If I cannot come to personal impressions in my reading of your words, would you agree that your conclusions about my intent/motives/meaning may be just as suspect in your reading of my words?

Will you say that you feel as much anger and contempt for the terrorists as you express towards Israel? Can you explain why your arguments so far have not seemed to express that? Do you hold a modern nation to a higher standard than you hold those determined to obliterate it even though the leaders of the aggressors are mostly well educated and quite affluent?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And I don't know whether the attacks on a German surveillance ship or on French UNIFIL forces were intentional or incidents producing unfortunate casualties of war. And neither do you. Without such proof, and as I believe Israel had sufficient provocation for engaging in war, I will give Israel the benefit of the doubt for the reason that they didn't start it if there is no better reason.

From this here I realize that you're not familiar with the recent incidents. No merit in discussing it, then. However, it seems you're quite willing to ignore the news that show in Israel in a rather unfavorable light

So say you. What news have I ignored? Or must one agree with your perception in order for there to be merit in discussing it?

0 Replies

That quote doesn't seem to be from Britannica neither.

(The Roman invasion led by Pompei was in 63, the kingdom established with Jerusalem as capital under Herod in 38, btw - source: Palestine. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-45059 )

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

That quote doesn't seem to be from Britannica neither.

(The Roman invasion led by Pompei was in 63, the kingdom established with Jerusalem as capital under Herod in 38, btw - according to Britannica.)

The sources I most often use for that period of history say that Pompei marched into Jerusalem in 63 BC. The Herod dynasty dates back to the Maccabean uprising with a succession of "Herod's" and sons of Herod's coming forward and holding various degrees of power until Rome kicked the Jews out of Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

0 Replies

fozfire wrote :
"If you criticized the police who are simply doing their job and seemed to give the criminals a pass in comparison with your criticism of the police, I would be just as critical of your position on that. "

the question would be :
"are the police DOING THEIR JOB a/t the powers invested in them or are they overstepping their boundaries ? "
courts have made it quite clear that the police cannot engage in ANY illegal activities in the process of apprehending criminals .
imo if illegal activities of the police would be condoned , they would be not much better than the criminals they are trying to apprehend .
the job of the police is not always an easy one , but i wouldn't want the police to decide on their own what they are allowed to do and what not - that is the job of the legislators .
hbg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you criticized the police who are simply doing their job and seemed to give the criminals a pass in comparison with your criticism of the police, I would be just as critical of your position on that.

Right. I messed up what I wanted to say. Let me try again:

If there was evidence that the police had violated the law, would I not be allowed to criticize the police for doing so without mentioning that, however, criminals commit crimes?

Foxfyre wrote:

Will you say that you feel as much anger and contempt for the terrorists as you express towards Israel?

Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:

Can you explain why your arguments so far have not seemed to express that?

Because you're not blindly supporting the terrorists. If you had completely sided with the terrorists but were still capable of rational discourse, you'd see me arguing in favor Israel.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you hold a modern nation to a higher standard than you hold those determined to obliterate it even though the leaders of the aggressors are mostly well educated and quite affluent?

By declaring them "terrorists", I would say I have pretty much given up on holding them to any standard. I hope you can see that.

However, I'm all for distinguishing between terrorists who commit terrorist acts - even in the name of the Palestinians - and the Palestinian population. I would hope that we could agree on that. The difference between the two would merit a discussion of its own, of course.

Foxfyre wrote:

So say you. What news have I ignored? Or must one agree with your perception in order for there to be merit in discussing it?

No, you must not agree with my perception. Let me ask you this question, then: from all you know about the attack on the "Alster", would you say it was an intentional attack?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If you criticized the police who are simply doing their job and seemed to give the criminals a pass in comparison with your criticism of the police, I would be just as critical of your position on that.

Right. I messed up what I wanted to say. Let me try again:

If there was evidence that the police had violated the law, would I not be allowed to criticize the police for doing so without mentioning that, however, criminals commit crimes?

(This is also directed to Hamburger's comment) Of course the Police should follow the law as much as they can. The Police should operate under the law they signed on to uphold. But if the next city or the next state or another country or the criminals themselves presume to dictate to the Police what law must obeyed, and that dictate puts the Police as a distinct and/or deadly disadvantage, I would think that should be the yardstick by which we evaluate whether the Police acted reasonably or not.

And when the rhetoric seems to excuse the criminals because the Police were perceived to be in the wrong, then I'm going to defend the Police whenever it is reasonable to do so and whatever bogus "law" is drummed up to condemn them can be damned.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Will you say that you feel as much anger and contempt for the terrorists as you express towards Israel?

Yes.

Good. I would like to believe that you are sincere in that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Can you explain why your arguments so far have not seemed to express that?

Because you're not blindly supporting the terrorists. If you had completely sided with the terrorists but were still capable of rational discourse, you'd see me arguing in favor Israel.

I see. So if your perception is that I am "blindly supporting Israel", however insulting that might be, and that's why you aren't in any way favorable toward Israel, then you aren't debating the issues here at all. You are trying to discredit me. Okay. I can accept that as your motive, but then you would be right in your last point. There isn't anything to discuss.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Do you hold a modern nation to a higher standard than you hold those determined to obliterate it even though the leaders of the aggressors are mostly well educated and quite affluent?

By declaring them "terrorists", I would say I have pretty much given up on holding them to any standard. I hope you can see that.

However, I'm all for distinguishing between terrorists who commit terrorist acts - even in the name of the Palestinians - and the Palestinian population. I would hope that we could agree on that. The difference between the two would merit a discussion of its own, of course.

If I believed for a minute that Israel was targeting civilians with the intent to injure, kill, or maim civilians, I would agree that Israel was 100% in the wrong. But the one thing the anti-Israel group never wants to acknowledge is that the terrorists hide among the civilians and use them as shields. As testified previously in this thread, there is at least some evidence that the terrorists hope for civilian casualties so they can use them as propaganda to win sympathy for their side. There is even some credible suspicion that they create civilian casualties to use as propaganda for their side.

I believe Israel has to go after the terrorists wherever they are and that may necessitate endangering civilians as much as has been the case in every war that has ever been fought. And it is no more inappropriate than U.S. or British soldiers going door to door in Iraqi civilian neighbors to ferret out the insurgents. And in both cases sh*t happens.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that Israel has mitigated civilian casualties as much as is reasonable to do. And barring proof that is not the case I will continue to defend Israel however much you might think I am 'blindly' doing so.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So say you. What news have I ignored? Or must one agree with your perception in order for there to be merit in discussing it?

No, you must not agree with my perception. Let me ask you this question, then: from all you know about the attack on the "Alster", would you say it was an intentional attack?

[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the Alster or anybody on it harmed in any way? Did or did not the Alster launch at least two helicopters without notifying Israel they were doing this and this provoked some pretty close and no doubt quite threatening scrutiny from Israeli fighters. If it was an inappropriate 'joke' as some have alleged, does this in any way compare with the thousands of dead Israeli men, women, and children killed by terrorist attacks? Can you really qualify ththe Alster event as an attack? Or was it just extremely annoying to the Germans on board the ship?

(I've never said Israel isn't sometimes annoying. But that's a whole different issue than the very real life and death issues threatening Israel every day.)

0 Replies

Thge 'Alster' has no helicopters on board nor is the ship armed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Or was it just extremely annoying to the Germans on board the ship?

I suppose so. And I truely think you would feel similar when you someone shows you that the next will be real shots. (That's why the French nearly did respond so.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thge 'Alster' has no helicopters on board nor is the ship armed.

Several sources I've read mention one helicopter and several mention more than one.

Here's one of those sources:
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/10/israel_apologiz.php

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Several sources I've read mention one helicopter and several mention more than one.

http://www.marine.de/02DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26RCAHF240INFODE/$FILE/_640.jpg

They must have foldable helicopters in that case ... and have photoshopped the video as well.

(They attacked the helicopter with the [German] commandig admiral of UNIFIL - but that was a "technical mistake", since they couldn't read the UN signs properly.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course the Police should follow the law as much as they can.

There you go. I think the police should follow the law.

Foxfyre wrote:

So if your perception is that I am "blindly supporting Israel"

Well, what can I say. Your perception is that I'm "anti-Israel" because I do not criticize the terrorists enough - or at least you've said so earlier. On the other hand, I've never seen you criticize Israel, no matter what. I might have missed something, but I've never seen it. So, applying your own yardstick, what would you label yourself?

Foxfyre wrote:

If I believed for a minute that Israel was targeting civilians with the intent to injure, kill, or maim civilians, I would agree that Israel was 100% in the wrong.

Agree? Hum. Thing is, I've never said that Israel was 100 percent in the wrong. Nope. But they're not 100 percent in the right either. Frankly, considering some incidents, I doubt that sometimes they are even trying very hard - and that's the main point I'm criticizing.

Anyways, if they're in the right 95 percent of the time, and wrong in 5 percent of the incidents, should that somehow stop people from voicing critique in those 5 percent of all cases?

Foxfyre wrote:

But the one thing the anti-Israel group never wants to acknowledge is that the terrorists hide among the civilians and use them as shields.

Oh, I do acknowledge that. I think it's a war crime.

Foxfyre wrote:

As testified previously in this thread, there is at least some evidence that the terrorists hope for civilian casualties so they can use them as propaganda to win sympathy for their side.

Yes, very true.

But:

- That does not necessarily mean that those two things are connected in each and every case - that whenever the Israeli army kills a number of civilians it means that there were a number of terrorists among them.

- Being aware of the effect civilian casualties have (namely driving even the average population into the arms of fanatics and radicals), wouldn't it be in Israel's own interest to take utmost care that civilian casualties are something that don't "happen" in unmentionable numbers?

Foxfyre wrote:

There is even some credible suspicion that they create civilian casualties to use as propaganda for their side.

"Credible suspicion"? Duh. So far, I don't have a reason to believe that kind of propaganda. From neither side.

Foxfyre wrote:

I believe Israel has to go after the terrorists wherever they are and that may necessitate endangering civilians as much as has been the case in every war that has ever been fought.

Well, either it is a war, and Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets for the other side. Or it's not a war, but rather a police action (especially in the case of the occupied territories), and neither Israeli civilians nor soldiers are a legitimate target for the other side. But then Israel has the absolute duty to avoid civilian casualties. You can't have it both ways.

Foxfyre wrote:

There seems to be plenty of evidence that Israel has mitigated civilian casualties as much as is reasonable to do. And barring proof that is not the case I will continue to defend Israel

This is a non-statement. According to that, all Israel has to do is state that avoiding civilian casualties was not reasonable. What would be a proof that Israel did not try to avoid civilian casualties? An Israeli investigation into war crimes, coming to the conclusion that Israel has, indeed, committed these crimes?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The question is: do you join with some others on this thread and think Israel should just pack it in at this point, vacate the territory, go elsewhere, and then there will be peace in the Middle East?

This is typical Fox hatefulness, and a typical Fox strawman.

Who, Fox, in this thread, has advocated that the Israelis "pack it in at this point, vacate the territory, [and] go elsewhere," hmm? You're making things up, and as you so often do, erecting a strawman by characterizing the position of those with whom you disagree in false, unfavorable and insulting terms.

I guess your answer to Foxfyre's question is you do not join with some others on this thread and think Israel should just pack it in at this point, vacate the territory, go elsewhere, and then there will be peace in the Middle East.

Typical Ican stupidity. Apparently, you either don't know what a strawman is, or your hope to reinforce Fox's strawman. She has failed to demonstrate that anyone in this thread thinks the Israelis should "pack it in" and vacate the territory they now occupy--so the question effectively functions as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

I don't expect you to understand that, though, as the evidence you have provided at this site for years is that your head is as far buried in the sand as is Fox's. Both of you are past masters of continually repeating statements which are unproven, or which have even been proven not to be true, and of continually repeating your strawman accusations against anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the horsepoop you predictably peddle.

So, the question to Fox remains, who in this thread has said the Israelis should "pack it in at this point, vacate the territory, [and] go elsewhere?"

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Of course the Police should follow the law as much as they can.

There you go. I think the police should follow the law.

You left out the very specific qualification I attached to my comments on this which very much qualified what law the police are obligated to follow. Tsk. Tsk. Dishonest

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So if your perception is that I am "blindly supporting Israel"

Well, what can I say. Your perception is that I'm "anti-Israel" because I do not criticize the terrorists enough - or at least you've said so earlier. On the other hand, I've never seen you criticize Israel, no matter what. I might have missed something, but I've never seen it. So, applying your own yardstick, what would you label yourself?

Foxfyre wrote:

If I believed for a minute that Israel was targeting civilians with the intent to injure, kill, or maim civilians, I would agree that Israel was 100% in the wrong.

If you have not seen me criticize Israel then you haven't been reading my posts. Not even those included in our immediate conversation. Further I have specifically stated in what areas I defend Israel and why. And so far I have seen NO evidence that Israel has intentionally targeted civilians with the intent to injure, kill, or maim civilians despite the heavy rhetoric from people--yes people like you--who seem to so very much want to believe that they do.

Quote:

Agree? Hum. Thing is, I've never said that Israel was 100 percent in the wrong. Nope. But they're not 100 percent in the right either. Frankly, considering some incidents, I doubt that sometimes they are even trying very hard - and that's the main point I'm criticizing.

Anyways, if they're in the right 95 percent of the time, and wrong in 5 percent of the incidents, should that somehow stop people from voicing critique in those 5 percent of all cases?

Can you cite any quote in which you have commended Israel on any point anywhere in this thread? What in your opinion has Israel done right? Where have you suggested that they have at any time acted appropriately or defended them in any way? Saying they "have a right to defend themselves" - followed by a BUT that says they didn't have a right to do what they have done against Hezbollah doesn't qualify as any kind of affirmation of Israel so far as I am concerned.

So why do you think you aren't just "blindly" criticizing Israel because that's the popular, politically correct thing to do?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But the one thing the anti-Israel group never wants to acknowledge is that the terrorists hide among the civilians and use them as shields.

Oh, I do acknowledge that. I think it's a war crime.

Well we agree on something here then.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
As testified previously in this thread, there is at least some evidence that the terrorists hope for civilian casualties so they can use them as propaganda to win sympathy for their side.

Yes, very true.

But:

- That does not necessarily mean that those two things are connected in each and every case - that whenever the Israeli army kills a number of civilians it means that there were a number of terrorists among them.

- Being aware of the effect civilian casualties have (namely driving even the average population into the arms of fanatics and radicals), wouldn't it be in Israel's own interest to take utmost care that civilian casualties are something that don't "happen" in unmentionable numbers?

I have repeatedly asked the Israeli critics to cite exactly WHAT Israel should have done to stop suicide bombers blowing up crowded busses and markets or rockets being fired into their residential neighborhoods. I get a vague "follow the law" response, but it is always some notion of "international law" that they are expected to follow. But I don't see anybody in the international community defending them, helping them to stop the attacks, or approving the measure they feel they need to take in their own defense.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're the head of state of Israel and in charge of the military. Your residential neighborhoods are being repeatedly shelled with rockets fired from within occupied residential neighborhoods in Lebanon. Your people are forced to stay in bomb shelters and cannot safely venture out to go to work or tend their gardens or get milk for the children. It is an intolerable situation. Nobody in the international community is either condeming or threatening Hezbollah nor offering you any kind of assistance.

What do you do? And how do you do it without endangering civilians?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is even some credible suspicion that they create civilian casualties to use as propaganda for their side.

"Credible suspicion"? Duh. So far, I don't have a reason to believe that kind of propaganda. From neither side.

Again you then have not read all the information that has been posted in this thread. The very fact that they fired their rockets from within occupied civilian neighborhoods instead of putting them in unoccupied areas--several areas had evacuated--should tell you a lot. The many photo shopped photos that have been posted on this thread of the misrepresented 'carnage' blamed on the Israelis should tell you more as well as the accounts of what measures the Israelis did to mitigate civilian casualties.

Now show me where Hezbollah did anything to mitigate civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Or on their side for that matter.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I believe Israel has to go after the terrorists wherever they are and that may necessitate endangering civilians as much as has been the case in every war that has ever been fought.

Well, either it is a war, and Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets for the other side. Or it's not a war, but rather a police action (especially in the case of the occupied territories), and neither Israeli civilians nor soldiers are a legitimate target for the other side. But then Israel has the absolute duty to avoid civilian casualties. You can't have it both ways.

Again, tell me HOW Israel both defends itself and avoid civilian casualties. I am sure all the military heads of the world would be fascinated with your solution for this as nobody has yet been able to accomplish it in a time of war. Hezbollah was not targeting Israeli soldiers. It freely admitted it was targeting Israeli civilians.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There seems to be plenty of evidence that Israel has mitigated civilian casualties as much as is reasonable to do. And barring proof that is not the case I will continue to defend Israel

This is a non-statement. According to that, all Israel has to do is state that avoiding civilian casualties was not reasonable. What would be a proof that Israel did not try to avoid civilian casualties? An Israeli investigation into war crimes, coming to the conclusion that Israel has, indeed, committed these crimes?

[/QUOTE]

I am not going to rehash all the stuff that has been posted on this thread. As the evidence posted here is that Israel did take reasonable measures to mitigate civilian casualties, they were not obligated to explain to you that it was unreasonable to expect that all civilian casualties could be avoided. Any reasonable person would know that before the first shot was fired.. I do not believe Israel would ever get a fair trial through the U.N. or any other international body if tried for 'war crimes' and I would see a trial of Israel as an obscene travesty when there has been no suggestion that Hamas or Hezbollah should subject to any international tribunal called a trial.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know