15
   

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

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
In a word, yes. Give Pals equal treatment - as in a real democracy - both legal and economic. Stop building more settlements in the West Bank, and quit stealing Pal's property. Destroy the walls that separate the Pals from the Jews - including the one surrounding Bethlehem.

Give the Pals more freedoms equal to what the Jews have in Israel.

Providing equality to Pals will diminish, if not completely eliminate, suicide bombers. But as in in country - including the US - there will always exist extremists who will kill others for their misguided political beliefs.

What the Jews of Israel have been doing and are still doing is wrong-headed, and will never bring peace to Israel. It only creates inequality and resentment - and suicide bombers.


So if Israel does everything you are saying, will you then allow them the right to retaliate when they are attacked?

That seems to be the problem, as I see it.
You are saying Israel should give in to all of the Pal demands, yet you are also condemning Israel for defending itself when they are attacked.

Why are you not saying that the Pals should cease their rocket and mortar attacks before there can be peace.
You seem to be saying that its ok for the pals to kill Israeli's, but its not ok for the Israeli's to kill pals.

Am I reading you wrong?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:08 pm
In a word, yes. Give Pals equal treatment - as in a real democracy - both legal and economic. Stop building more settlements in the West Bank, and quit stealing Pal's property. Destroy the walls that separate the Pals from the Jews - including the one surrounding Bethlehem.

THE PALS IN ISRAEL HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RIGHTS. IN GENERAL, THEY ARE BETTER OFF THAN THE ARABS IN THE REST OF THE ME. THE WALLS ARE NECESSARY TO STOP ATTACKS, WHICH NOTHING ELSE HAS STOPPED.

Give the Pals more freedoms equal to what the Jews have in Israel.
SEE ABOVE.

Providing equality to Pals will diminish, if not completely eliminate, suicide bombers. But as in in country - including the US - there will always exist extremists who will kill others for their misguided political beliefs.

JUST NOT TRUE. WHEN THE PALS HAD IT ALL (BEFORE '67), THEY CONTINUED TO ATTACK ISRAEL. WHEN THE PALS ARE SINCERE ABOUT PEACE WITH ISRAEL, THE LATTER WILL RETURN WHAT LITTLE IT HAS IN WB. ISRAEL GAVE BACK GAZA, AND PEACE WAS ACHIEVED [JOKE].

What the Jews of Israel have been doing and are still doing is wrong-headed, and will never bring peace to Israel. It only creates inequality and resentment - and suicide bombers.

THE PALS HAVE NEVER BEEN A PARTNER FOR PEACE, AND MAY NEVER BE. ISRAEL MUST ACT ACCORDINGLY TO SURVIVE.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
mysteryman wrote:
You are saying Israel should give in to all of the Pal demands, yet you are also condemning Israel for defending itself when they are attacked.


I, for one, see a difference between 'self-defence' and some of what Israel is doing. I'm not condemning everything Israel is doing, far from it. And there may be a legitimate need to resort to, uhm, violent means when under attack. Heck, we concede that the police has to use violence when the situation dictates it.

However, even a policeman could end up behind bars for excessive use of violence. Apparently we, as a society, seem to think that violence, even when used in self-defence, should have some limits.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 03:32 pm
And, I believe, old europe is describing when a police has contact with a suspected criminal. If any police begins to shoot indiscriminately to kill a suspect, but ends up killing innocents, there has to be some limits and consequences.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 03:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
And, I believe, old europe is describing when a police has contact with a suspected criminal.


Well, yes, but not even limited to a suspected criminal.

Let's assume there was a guy out there, running around, shooting at people. Let's say he has already killed one person.

We would find it quite acceptable for the police to use violence to stop that guy. However, we would probably not find it acceptable if the police, in trying to stop the guy, shot another ten innocent bystanders. Not even if they stopped or killed the guy in the end. Not even if the guy started the whole thing. Not even if the guy was trying to hide behind civilians.


And yet, people are defending the exact same thing in regard to Israel. (In the Lebanon conflict in summer of 2006, there were 120 Israeli civilians killed and about 400 wounded. On the Lebanese side, 1,191 civilians were killed and
4,409 injured.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 04:21 pm
oe, I agree 100%.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 06:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
In a word, yes. Give Pals equal treatment - as in a real democracy - both legal and economic. Stop building more settlements in the West Bank, and quit stealing Pal's property. Destroy the walls that separate the Pals from the Jews - including the one surrounding Bethlehem.

Give the Pals more freedoms equal to what the Jews have in Israel.

Providing equality to Pals will diminish, if not completely eliminate, suicide bombers. But as in in country - including the US - there will always exist extremists who will kill others for their misguided political beliefs.

What the Jews of Israel have been doing and are still doing is wrong-headed, and will never bring peace to Israel. It only creates inequality and resentment - and suicide bombers.

Yes, by all means grant the Pals all that ... in exchange for the Pals granting Israel the right to exist.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:10 pm
old europe wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
And, I believe, old europe is describing when a police has contact with a suspected criminal.


Well, yes, but not even limited to a suspected criminal.

Let's assume there was a guy out there, running around, shooting at people. Let's say he has already killed one person.

We would find it quite acceptable for the police to use violence to stop that guy. However, we would probably not find it acceptable if the police, in trying to stop the guy, shot another ten innocent bystanders. Not even if they stopped or killed the guy in the end. Not even if the guy started the whole thing. Not even if the guy was trying to hide behind civilians.


And yet, people are defending the exact same thing in regard to Israel. (In the Lebanon conflict in summer of 2006, there were 120 Israeli civilians killed and about 400 wounded. On the Lebanese side, 1,191 civilians were killed and
4,409 injured.)

The Israelis did a terribly sloppy job of limiting their defense to killing just those people who were trying to kill as many Israelis as they could with rockets. Lacking adequate means to tell the difference between those trying to kill as many Israelis as they could with rockets, and those not trying to kill any Israelis at all, the Israelis should have waited to respond until they could develop such means. Some Israelis might have survived that wait. After all is living really all that important to Jews? Isn't it more important for those dead Lebanese to have survived instead?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:13 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
In a word, yes. Give Pals equal treatment - as in a real democracy - both legal and economic. Stop building more settlements in the West Bank, and quit stealing Pal's property. Destroy the walls that separate the Pals from the Jews - including the one surrounding Bethlehem.

Give the Pals more freedoms equal to what the Jews have in Israel.

Providing equality to Pals will diminish, if not completely eliminate, suicide bombers. But as in in country - including the US - there will always exist extremists who will kill others for their misguided political beliefs.

What the Jews of Israel have been doing and are still doing is wrong-headed, and will never bring peace to Israel. It only creates inequality and resentment - and suicide bombers.

Yes, by all means grant the Pals all that ... in exchange for the Pals granting Israel the right to exist.


But that's the problem. Israel wants the right to exist as it exists presently--as the homeland for Jews, not Palestinians--by discriminating against, and oppressing the Palestinians through unequal treatment, keeping them away from the Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands in Israel, and segregating the populations.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:53 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
In a word, yes. Give Pals equal treatment - as in a real democracy - both legal and economic. Stop building more settlements in the West Bank, and quit stealing Pal's property. Destroy the walls that separate the Pals from the Jews - including the one surrounding Bethlehem.

Give the Pals more freedoms equal to what the Jews have in Israel.

Providing equality to Pals will diminish, if not completely eliminate, suicide bombers. But as in in country - including the US - there will always exist extremists who will kill others for their misguided political beliefs.

What the Jews of Israel have been doing and are still doing is wrong-headed, and will never bring peace to Israel. It only creates inequality and resentment - and suicide bombers.

Yes, by all means grant the Pals all that ... in exchange for the Pals granting Israel the right to exist.


But that's the problem. Israel wants the right to exist as it exists presently--as the homeland for Jews, not Palestinians--by discriminating against, and oppressing the Palestinians through unequal treatment, keeping them away from the Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands in Israel, and segregating the populations.

Israel once wanted the right to exist as it did prior to the 1967 war. They offered that several times to the Pals in return for being granted by the Pals the right to exist.

I think that now it will be a hard sell to get the Israelis to again make that offer to the Pals, because they will probably think the Pals cannot be trusted to do what they say.

Yes, Israel wants to exist as a homeland for Jews including those Arabs who are currently living in Israel. The UN's 1947 resolution advocated that, plus it advocated a separate homeland for those Arabs not living in Israel.

Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands Question What Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands Question The last time Palestine was ruled by Arabs was in the year 1099 AD.

When the Palestinian refugees fled their homes and businesses in Israel in 1948 in anticipation of Israel being conquered by their fellow Arabs et al outside Palestine, they gave up any rights they had to their homes and businesses in Israel. The Palestinians that chose not to flee in 1948 still possess their homes and businesses in Israel.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 08:25 pm
ican711nm wrote:
After all is living really all that important to Jews? Isn't it more important for those dead Lebanese to have survived instead?


Well, ican, you bring this up, so let me ask you: in your opinion, are the lives of innocent Israeli civilians more valuable than the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians? Yes? Or no?

What do you think?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:00 pm
ican wrote:
Israel once wanted the right to exist as it did prior to the 1967 war.


How did Israel exist prior to the 1967 war?

Quote:
Yes, Israel wants to exist as a homeland for Jews including those Arabs who are currently living in Israel. The UN's 1947 resolution advocated that, plus it advocated a separate homeland for those Arabs not living in Israel.


The UN's resolution certainly didn't call for the transfer of populations.

Quote:
Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands What Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands The last time Palestine was ruled by Arabs was in the year 1099 AD.


I didn't talk about whom ruled what when, I talked about the Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands in Israel. Those lands they inhabited before the catastrophe of 1948. That wasn't a very subtle try at a straw man, ican. Try sticking to the points proffered.

Quote:
When the Palestinian refugees fled their homes and businesses in Israel in 1948 in anticipation of Israel being conquered by their fellow Arabs et al outside Palestine, they gave up any rights they had to their homes and businesses in Israel. The Palestinians that chose not to flee in 1948 still possess their homes and businesses in Israel.


In an earlier post you had referred to this tripe as, "the true history of events as I know it to have been." In response to your obsessively compulsive--and anally retentive to boot!--clinging to what amounts to nothing more than propaganda, I post this yet again:

There is, to put it mildly, a disparity between "the true history of events" as you know it, and the true history of events themselves. What you know has been broadly dismissed as Zionist propaganda by Israeli historians such as Aharon Cohen who in the 1970's pointed out in his book "Israel and the Arab World" the complete collapse of the Arab leadership that contributed to the disorder among the Arab populace, but that in actuality the Arab leadership, namely the Arab Higher Committee had tried to forestall the Arab flight during the 1948 war. In 1979 Simha Flapan wrote in his book "Zionism and the Palestinians" that "the hard core of refugees were deliberately intimidated into a panic flight, or driven out by force even after the war was over." The scholarship most damaging to the Zionist propaganda that you adhere to is perhaps that of Benny Morris who in the late 1980's through his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" brought to light the ethnic cleansing that was perpetrated by the Zionist forces as they swept through the Arab populated areas that came under their control during the 1948 war. The Arab populace ran in terror due to the increasing accounts of Jewish atrocities committed against the Arab villages that they'd subjugate. In response to claims that he ignored claims that the Arab leadership ordered the Palestinians to flee, Morris has stated that there is no evidence for these claims, what's more, he had uncovered documentation showing that the Arab leadership gave orders to the Palestinians to remain in their homes.




In regard to the ridiculously self-serving, and flatly false opinion that "When the Palestinian refugees fled their homes and businesses in Israel in 1948 . . . they gave up any rights they had to their homes and businesses in Israel" after the catastrophe of 1948, the UN through its General Assembly Resolution 194(111) of 11 December 1948 resolved "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

What has occurred in the interim is merely that Israel has refused to honor the UN's resolution through legalistic rationalizations in their attempt to keep Israel a discriminatorily and oppressivly ethnocentric state.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:39 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
After all is living really all that important to Jews? Isn't it more important for those dead Lebanese to have survived instead?


Well, ican, you bring this up, so let me ask you: in your opinion, are the lives of innocent Israeli civilians more valuable than the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians? Yes? Or no?

What do you think?

You missed the point of my sarcasm.

Clearly, the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians are more important to the Lebanese than the lives of Jews. Shame on them? No, I don't think that is anything for them to be ashamed of.

Clearly, the lives of innocent Israeli civilians are more important to the Israelis than the lives of Lebanese. Shame on them? No, I don't think that is anything for them to be ashamed of.

The point is that demanding self-sacrifice from either on behalf of the other is both a monstrous and insane bias. War is hell because it cannot be managed like a sporting event where penalties can be assessed by purely objective referees to restrain either party from crippling or killing the other. War is a battle for survival by those fighting to defend themselves against those determined to destroy those defending themselves. Those Lebanese and Israeli casualties would not have occurred if the Israelis were not attacked in the first place. Blame the real culprits. Blame those who initiated mass murder and not those who try to protect themselves against mass murderers by attempting to kill those mass murderers.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:13 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
ican wrote:
Israel once wanted the right to exist as it did prior to the 1967 war.


How did Israel exist prior to the 1967 war?

Israel was smaller prior to the 1967 war.

Quote:
Yes, Israel wants to exist as a homeland for Jews including those Arabs who are currently living in Israel. The UN's 1947 resolution advocated that, plus it advocated a separate homeland for those Arabs not living in Israel.


The UN's resolution certainly didn't call for the transfer of populations.

The UN's 1947 resolution recommended two states: One a Jewish state and one an Arab state. The transfer of part of the Arab population in Israel was an Arab et al idea.

Quote:
Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands What Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands The last time Palestine was ruled by Arabs was in the year 1099 AD.


I didn't talk about whom ruled what when, I talked about the Palestinian refugees' ancestral lands in Israel. Those lands they inhabited before the catastrophe of 1948. That wasn't a very subtle try at a straw man, ican. Try sticking to the points proffered.

Those Arabs who did not flee Israel in 1948 retained their lands. Those that did flee Israel in 1948 lost them. Prior to the 1948 declaration of independence by Israel, Jews and Arabs bought and sold their individual lands from and to each other.

Quote:
When the Palestinian refugees fled their homes and businesses in Israel in 1948 in anticipation of Israel being conquered by their fellow Arabs et al outside Palestine, they gave up any rights they had to their homes and businesses in Israel. The Palestinians that chose not to flee in 1948 still possess their homes and businesses in Israel.


In an earlier post you had referred to this tripe as, "the true history of events as I know it to have been." In response to your obsessively compulsive--and anally retentive to boot!--clinging to what amounts to nothing more than propaganda, I post this yet again:

There is, to put it mildly, a disparity between "the true history of events" as you know it, and the true history of events themselves. What you know has been broadly dismissed as Zionist propaganda by Israeli historians such as Aharon Cohen who in the 1970's pointed out in his book "Israel and the Arab World" the complete collapse of the Arab leadership that contributed to the disorder among the Arab populace, but that in actuality the Arab leadership, namely the Arab Higher Committee had tried to forestall the Arab flight during the 1948 war. In 1979 Simha Flapan wrote in his book "Zionism and the Palestinians" that "the hard core of refugees were deliberately intimidated into a panic flight, or driven out by force even after the war was over." The scholarship most damaging to the Zionist propaganda that you adhere to is perhaps that of Benny Morris who in the late 1980's through his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" brought to light the ethnic cleansing that was perpetrated by the Zionist forces as they swept through the Arab populated areas that came under their control during the 1948 war. The Arab populace ran in terror due to the increasing accounts of Jewish atrocities committed against the Arab villages that they'd subjugate. In response to claims that he ignored claims that the Arab leadership ordered the Palestinians to flee, Morris has stated that there is no evidence for these claims, what's more, he had uncovered documentation showing that the Arab leadership gave orders to the Palestinians to remain in their homes.

We disagree. At that time in 1948, I personally heard the Arabs being quoted on ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs as urging the Arabs in Israel to flee so that they could avoid becoming accidental casualties of the ensuing Arab et al attack on Israel.

In regard to the ridiculously self-serving, and flatly false opinion that "When the Palestinian refugees fled their homes and businesses in Israel in 1948 . . . they gave up any rights they had to their homes and businesses in Israel" after the catastrophe of 1948, the UN through its General Assembly Resolution 194(111) of 11 December 1948 resolved "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

The Arabs cannot have it both ways. They don't deserve to have the UN December 1948 resolution supported by the Israelis, if they fail to support the UN 1947 resolution. Only when and if the Arabs support both resolutions then they will have legitimate basis for demanding that the Israelis support the UN December 1948 resolution.

What has occurred in the interim is merely that Israel has refused to honor the UN's resolution through legalistic rationalizations in their attempt to keep Israel a discriminatorily and oppressivly ethnocentric state.

The Arabs living in Israel are not oppressed. The Arabs living outside Israel are paying an earned penalty for their failure to comply with the UN's 1947 resolution and their attempt to destroy Israel.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 12:00 am
ican wrote:
At that time in 1948, I personally heard the Arabs being quoted on ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs as urging the Arabs in Israel to flee so that they could avoid becoming accidental casualties of the ensuing Arab et al attack on Israel.


You are basing your opinions on what you recall hearing 60 years ago? It goes without saying that the historians I mentioned who've researched the extant archival material are, to put it in a most profoundly understated manner, more credible than you and your 60 year old recollections. That you base your disagreement with those historians on these recollections of yours is an absurdly laughable joke.

Quote:
The Arabs cannot have it both ways. They don't deserve to have the UN December 1948 resolution supported by the Israelis, if they fail to support the UN 1947 resolution. Only when and if the Arabs support both resolutions then they will have legitimate basis for demanding that the Israelis support the UN December 1948 resolution.



If the Palestinians can't have it both ways, then the Israelis shouldn't have it both ways either. If they support UN resolution 181, then they have to support UN resolution 194. According to your line of reasoning it then follows that only when and if the Israelis support both resolutions then they will have legitimate basis for demanding that the Palestinians support the UN resolution 181.

Quote:
The Arabs living in Israel are not oppressed. The Arabs living outside Israel are paying an earned penalty for their failure to comply with the UN's 1947 resolution and their attempt to destroy Israel.


The Palestinians living in Israel are discriminated against. The Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. Only moral cripples assert that the Palestinians are paying an earned penalty for their failure to comply with the UN's 1947 resolution and their attempt to destroy Israel, a state whose very existence is necessarily predicated on their discrimination and oppression.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 10:06 am
Those interested in military history may like this. The piece indicates that the next conflict between Israel and Leb will be quite different.

News Beirut, Lebanon, January 6, 2008

IDF 'played into Hezbollah's hands' says Knesset report on Lebanon war
Shahar Ilan
Haaretz
01/03/2008


The Israel Defense Forces method of fighting during the Second Lebanon War "played into Hezbollah's hands," according to a report on the war written by the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

The report blasted the decision to launch a major ground operation only at the tail end of the war, and that the tactics used until then "were afflicted with blindness and reinforced the enemy's logic." Advertisement

"The lack of an approved, up-to-date plan of attack [in south Lebanon] was a serious failure on the part of Northern Command," it added.

Though most of the report focused on the army rather than the government, it also included some sharp criticisms of the latter. For instance, it said, the policy of restraint toward Hezbollah that successive governments adopted following Israel's pullout from Lebanon in 2000 "reduced the army to paralysis and weakness.

Throughout the years of the containment policy, the cabinet never held a focused discussion on the implications of this policy for our deployment on the northern border."

Stating that a major ground operation was essential to win the war, it blasted both political and military decision-makers for delaying this operation until the war's final days, when it was then cut short by a cease-fire before it could be effective.

"The IDF wasted precious time in putting ground forces into the fight (and in the way it put them in)," the report stated. This attests "to conceptual rigidity and a fundamental failure in reading the map of the ongoing battle."

The repeated delays in launching a major ground operation "eroded and wore out our forces, as well as the home front, and undermined the element of surprise," it added.

The report noted that "locating Katyusha [rockets] from the air was an almost impossible task, nor could they be neutralized solely from the air.

Despite this, no comprehensive ground campaign was launched until the end of the war. The IDF failed in achieving the main operational goal of the war - suppressing the Katyusha fire."

It also criticized the IDF's decision not to send soldiers into the so-called "nature reserves" - fortified areas where Hezbollah had concentrated its forces.

"An earlier ground operation would probably have significantly reduced the amount of fire at the home front," said committee chair Tzachi Hanegbi (Kadima), summarizing one of the report's main findings. "Hezbollah would have had to choose between retreating northward and a ground battle. In either case, the threat to the home front would have been significantly reduced."

Essentially, the report said, the army's tactics during the war were the same ones it uses in counterterrorism operations in the West Bank and Gaza.

However, these tactics "were unsuited to south Lebanon. The infantry's use of houses as shelters turned them into death traps when confronted with antitank missiles."

The report also found numerous intelligence lapses, such as a lack of intelligence about Hezbollah's positions. Some tactical intelligence was improperly processed, some was out of date, and some was never transferred to the fighting forces, it continued.

The committee began its investigation in September 2006. All 17 of its members signed the report, though about a third added reservations to their signatures - many due to what they termed an insufficient focus on the government's role in the fiasco.

But Hanegbi argued that critiquing the government's performance was the Winograd Committee's job, and that MKs, being politicians, could not credibly critique other politicians.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 01:35 pm
ican711nm wrote:
You missed the point of my sarcasm.


I did?


ican711nm wrote:
Clearly, the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians are more important to the Lebanese than the lives of Jews. Shame on them? No, I don't think that is anything for them to be ashamed of.

Clearly, the lives of innocent Israeli civilians are more important to the Israelis than the lives of Lebanese. Shame on them? No, I don't think that is anything for them to be ashamed of.


Might be the case. It's not an entirely unreasonable assumption. However, I'm neither Lebanese nor Israeli. I can try not to get emotionally so involved that I loose the perspective, that I reach the conclusion that the lives of innocent civilians on one side are worth less than the lives of innocent civilians on the other side.

Sure, we can blame terrorists, we can blame the Hezbollah fighters for starting this specific episode.

Does that mean that all of a sudden, it's not so bad when more than 1,000 people who had absolutely nothing to do with the attack or even with Hezbollah get killed, because the Hezbollah fighters launched their attack from one side of a imaginary line in the dirt?


ican711nm wrote:
The point is that demanding self-sacrifice from either on behalf of the other is both a monstrous and insane bias.


Exactly. Yet, it seems that that's what you're doing when you're saying something along the lines of 'Well, if the Lebanese don't manage to eradicate the Hezbollah problem in their country, it's only fair if Israel launches a bombing campaign on their territory.'


ican711nm wrote:
War is hell because it cannot be managed like a sporting event where penalties can be assessed by purely objective referees to restrain either party from crippling or killing the other.


Saying 'war is hell' is no excuse. Yes, war is terrible. But the 2006 conflict didn't start out as a war. It started as an attack on a military patrol, and as a kidnapping. I don't see how it necessarily had to get to the stage of war, where hundreds of people got killed. It's not like a massive military intervention on the scale launched by Israel was simply unavoidable.


ican711nm wrote:
War is a battle for survival by those fighting to defend themselves against those determined to destroy those defending themselves.


Are you still talking about the recent Lebanon War, or about social Darwinism in general?


ican711nm wrote:
Those Lebanese and Israeli casualties would not have occurred if the Israelis were not attacked in the first place.


True. And those Lebanese and Israeli casualties would not have occurred in many other scenarios. There was no need for a massive military intervention. There was no need to launch a bombing campaign deep into Lebanon.

Sure, the Hezbollah attack started that sad chapter, but you seem to say that the minute Hezbollah attacked, the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians was simply a foregone conclusion.



ican711nm wrote:
Blame the real culprits.


Oh, I do.


ican711nm wrote:
Blame those who initiated mass murder and not those who try to protect themselves against mass murderers by attempting to kill those mass murderers.


Empty, hollow phrase. Sorry, ican. You've said that a thousand times, but it has almost nothing to do with the situation on 12 July 2006.

I blame those who think that certain goals are more important than the lives of innocent civilians.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 02:00 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
ican wrote:
At that time in 1948, I personally heard the Arabs being quoted on ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs as urging the Arabs in Israel to flee so that they could avoid becoming accidental casualties of the ensuing Arab et al attack on Israel.


You are basing your opinions on what you recall hearing 60 years ago? It goes without saying that the historians I mentioned who've researched the extant archival material are, to put it in a most profoundly understated manner, more credible than you and your 60 year old recollections. That you base your disagreement with those historians on these recollections of yours is an absurdly laughable joke.

Who are these alleged historians? What makes you think they are competent, and honest? The fundamental fact is that thousands of Palestinians did not choose to flee Israel. Their progeny continue to reside in Israel. Those that did choose to flee did so at the urging of their leaders.

Quote:
The Arabs cannot have it both ways. They don't deserve to have the UN December 1948 resolution supported by the Israelis, if they fail to support the UN 1947 resolution. Only when and if the Arabs support both resolutions then they will have legitimate basis for demanding that the Israelis support the UN December 1948 resolution.



If the Palestinians can't have it both ways, then the Israelis shouldn't have it both ways either. If they support UN resolution 181, then they have to support UN resolution 194. According to your line of reasoning it then follows that only when and if the Israelis support both resolutions then they will have legitimate basis for demanding that the Palestinians support the UN resolution 181.

It is a fact that the Arabs, rather than agree with the UN's 1947 resolution to partition Palestine into an Arab state and an Israeli state, repeatedly waged war against the state of Israel in order to eliminate it. For those Arabs to truly expect Israel to permit their return under those conditions is preposterous.

The Israelis would have to be damn fools and/or masochists to permit those Arabs that fled Israel during the 1948 war to return without proclaiming the end of their war on Israel and without their approval of the existence of Israel in Palestine.


Quote:
The Arabs living in Israel are not oppressed. The Arabs living outside Israel are paying an earned penalty for their failure to comply with the UN's 1947 resolution and their attempt to destroy Israel.


The Palestinians living in Israel are discriminated against. The Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. Only moral cripples assert that the Palestinians are paying an earned penalty for their failure to comply with the UN's 1947 resolution and their attempt to destroy Israel, a state whose very existence is necessarily predicated on their discrimination and oppression.

Israel's very existence is necessarily predicated on the right of its citizens to freedom, independence, and self-government.

Yes, the Arabs living in Israel are discriminated against. They are denied having the same opportunity as those Arabs living outside Israel have to murder Jews in Israel.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 02:41 pm
Had German Americans moved to Germany just before WWII at the request of Germany, you can be sure that OE would not allow them to return.

With Israel, it is always a double standard wherein Israel is always at fault.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 02:45 pm
Advocate wrote:
Had German Americans moved to Germany just before WWII at the request of Germany, you can be sure that OE would not allow them to return.


You'd be wrong.

Advocate wrote:
With Israel, it is always a double standard wherein Israel is always at fault.


No, it's not that Israel is always at fault. I don't blame Israel for the Hezbollah attack, for example.

You, on the other hand, won't blame Israel for the almost 1,200 dead Lebanese civilians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 02/23/2025 at 11:31:45