NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

It is certainly within the Israeli military's capabilities to do so, probably in a matter of weeks.

And, they haven't done it.

Palestinian newspapers and editorials are constantly accusing the Israelis of genocide - but there isn't any.

I really liked the Jenin "massacre" . Stories about hundreds of people lined up and shot into mass graves. The International Red Cross shows up immediately and investigates - and they determine that NOTHING of the sort happened.

The question is: Why didn't the Palestinians do anything 50 years ago when Israel was just founded?

Indeed WL, and in fact the film "Jenin Jenin" showing the massive damage caused by Israel when they entered Jenin showed the same 30 metres or so of land, two or three houses destroyed shown from different angles :rolleyes: People actually fell for it.

The question is: Why didn't the Palestinians do anything 50 years ago when Israel was just founded?

They did. Arabs suck at combat, even against lightly armed civilians with crude equipment. Other than the Arab victories in the October 1973 war, every Arab army fielded in modern times has fared far worse than the French.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

I'd assume it's probably because they don't want to be remembered in the pages of history as the people who, after surviving acts of genocide perpetrated on them by others, went on three generations later to do exactly the same thing themselves to some other bunch of poor bastards.

Gee. Go figure.

They did. Arabs suck at combat, even against lightly armed civilians with crude equipment. Other than the Arab victories in the October 1973 war, every Arab army fielded in modern times has fared far worse than the French.the Irael VS Arabs was like ...you figthing vs a blind man...or in this case a dozen blind men.

you will shoot and kill them esily...cos they are blind and you can see.

the Irael VS Arabs was like ...you figthing vs a blind man...or in this case a dozen blind men.

you will shoot and kill them esily...cos they are blind and you can see.

During the initial struggle for the land, it was pretty evenly matched in terms of technology and weaponry. In fact, there were far, far more armed Arabs.

Not blind. They just suck.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

not even gonna bother reading through the rest of the post... there's a little thing called morals. i'd be nice to thing the Israelies have some, but the rest of the world definatley does (or pretends to) and would hopefully come down on Israel like a ton of bricks if that were ever to happen.

so they can't do this, as it happens

Hmm. Why not just kill the Jews?

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?All of you should go read "Exodus" by Leon Uris, and "The Source" by James A. Michener. And maybe a little history (real, unbiased history) of the Mid-East.

As to why doesn't any group of people just kill an entire other group of people just because they think they can...just maybe somebody with and ethical/moral bone in their body has some say in the matter.

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?Well look here: there's this thing called a democracy, and an educted population. Israeli people are not calculating genocidal brutes, nor are their politicians. As a nation that has EPERIENCED genocide, it is not one to inflict it on others.

What kind of a question is that? you cannot be serious. Maybe just really, really, way too cynical. shame.

I really liked the Jenin "massacre" . Stories about hundreds of people lined up and shot into mass graves. The International Red Cross shows up immediately and investigates - and they determine that NOTHING of the sort happened.

Did they get full access. The last story I remember was that they were barred from certain spots for protection.

Not blind. They just suck.

Actually the fought ok. They almost starved out Jeruselem at one point. Many Israelis died on the road trying to get supplies to them.

Hmm. Why not just kill the Jews?
The Arabs already tried. Now, they are unable to.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.

Actually the fought ok. They almost starved out Jeruselem at one point. Many Israelis died on the road trying to get supplies to them.What did Jeruselem do to them? That was really unfair to him/her. Lots of Arabs surrounding his/her house? How did s/he go places, I wonder? :D

Translation: Learn to spell!!!

I suppose there's no Israeli genocide in Palestine because the Israelis have morals and values? Or maybe they're not a lot of bomb-wielding fanatics? Think about it.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Actually the fought ok. They almost starved out Jeruselem at one point. Many Israelis died on the road trying to get supplies to them.
Considering the sheer numbers of Arabs, they sucked.

It's a truism that the typical Arab, even today, fires without aiming. Even a lot of Arabs that I trained during US-Egyptian exercises disdained the act of aiming - regardless of how many times you taught it to them.

After action reports from Israeli-Palestinian gunfights, and AARs from Iraq note that most Arabs NEVER aim. There's a lot of spray and pray, and a lot of shooting from the hip.

These are habits that are fatal in combat.

One Eqyptian officer explained to me that if it was God's will for his bullets to hit the enemy, they would, regardless of whether he aimed or not. He thought of victory or loss in the same way - it was irrelevant how hard he and his men tried to win, or whether they had good tactics, or whether they had good weapons -- certainly you must have some tactics, skill, desire, and weapons - but you don't have to sweat the details, because God is the sole arbiter of victory in battle.

I told him that it wasn't God's will that he offer himself as a target. It didn't go over very well.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.Apparently the Israelis believed they had a right to the land because they owned it about a thousand years before, when they were evicted from it by guess who.

The ancestors of modern-day Palestinians!!!!!!!!!

Now do you see more clearly?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Technically speaking, they are both descendants of Abraham.

Same family. One might wonder what they were fighting about. Their inheritance?

Ok guys, with intellectual posts like Santa Barbara, I'm going to ask the mods to lock this, as nothing good will come of it, merely flaming and flamebaiting.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.

The funny thing is that once the Palestinians were 'kicked out' nobody would accept them as immigrants. Jordan and Syria both sent all Palestinians back to where they came from and now they are both saying that it is wrong for the Israelis to not let the Palestinians in.

What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. What abot them indeed? Your post is so full of falsehoods that I'm loo lazy to correct them at them moment, but just to set the record straight, the Palestinian NEVER HAS A SOVEREIGHN STATE. Is it so
hard to understand that?

Apparently the Israelis believed they had a right to the land because they owned it about a thousand years before, when they were evicted from it by guess who.

The ancestors of modern-day Palestinians!!!!!!!!!

Now do you see more clearly?Czardas, this is pathetic. How much farther back do you want to go? we were all bacteria once. Tit-for-tat is not a debate.

Technically speaking, they are both descendants of Abraham.

Same family. One might wonder what they were fighting about. Their inheritance?Why should they?...

*considers argument*

Yeah, that actually sounds right! Abraham left it to Isaac, but Ishmael was the first-born son and thus the rightful inheritor. That must be it. I can't think of any other reason.

Heck, the Bible might not even be right. I doubt that Abraham existed. And if he did exist, you can't have children at the age of >90! People didn't even live until 90 back then! It's crazy!!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Apparently the Israelis believed they had a right to the land because they owned it about a thousand years before, when they were evicted from it by guess who.

The ancestors of modern-day Palestinians!!!!!!!!!

Now do you see more clearly?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You forgot the Arab insurection of 1929. Jews were living in Jerusalem for a few hundred years up to that point.

Technically speaking, they are both descendants of Abraham.

Same family. One might wonder what they were fighting about. Their inheritance?
Why not? People were fighting over his inheritance ever since he died (and even before that).

The question is: Why didn't the Palestinians do anything 50 years ago when Israel was just founded?
No. The real question is: why did the Palestinians tell the UN to shove their deal for a new country (when the Israelis accepted their deal) and then decide to move into Israel and start trouble and then demand a new country carved out of Israel?

The UN offered the Palestinians their own country...they turned it down...screw 'em. They had their chance.

For the record, "genocide" of the Palestinians isn't an option...but deporting them to Jordan (where the PLO came from -- and were kicked out of, at gunpoint, for doing the same thing they are doing to Israel) would be a good option.

I'm no expert on U.S. - Israel relations, but I am under the impression that a great deal of Isreali weapons technology comes from the U.S. Do you really think that the U.S. would continue to supply them with anything if Israel started a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians? Without U.S. support the surrounding Arabic countries would likely fight a long battle of attrition against the much smaller, and (assuming a U.S. embargo of weapons) poorly equipped Jewish State.

The Arabs already tried. Now, they are unable to.

Yeah, well, some of them seem to disagree.

And Israel can't just go and massacre the Palestinians outright. Though I'm sure that no one in Israel has ever thought about doing that! ;) There would be too much negative public outcry. At least one would hope.

And I guess genocide is still frowned upon by the US. Can't very well do without those billions of US tax dollars!

Ok guys, with intellectual posts like Santa Barbara, I'm going to ask the mods to lock this, as nothing good will come of it, merely flaming and flamebaiting.

What's more intellectual about "why not kill the Palestinians" than "why not kill the Jews?" Both are actually the same question.

I'm not sure if asking either question is good, but so far the discussion seems positive and remarkably mild.

Some people can't fathom that this is not about "should", but "why are the unable to".

I cannot believe that you are so disconnected that you believe that genocide is the answer. The reason that Israel is in place right now is because of genocide. Their has been enough murder on both sides, we don't need anymore. What they need to do is put their differences aside and do a two state solution.

I'm no expert on U.S. - Israel relations, but I am under the impression that a great deal of Isreali weapons technology comes from the U.S. Do you really think that the U.S. would continue to supply them with anything if Israel started a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians? Without U.S. support the surrounding Arabic countries would likely fight a long battle of attrition against the much smaller, and (assuming a U.S. embargo of weapons) poorly equipped Jewish State.
Good point. But, I doubt it's USA and only USA that's the reason why not.

How dependent is the Israeli state of foreign imports and exports? They couldn't sell their produce to Europe and elsewhere if they started a genocide campaign. Stalin didn't have this problem, as the Western powers needed him for fighting the Nazis. This is rather similar to Putin and Chechenya, as the Western powers need him to fight Islamists on that front.

Some people can't fathom that this is not about "should", but "why are the unable to".
aer you sure its not about both?
the middle east is complicated

there is the moral question of "should" ... an obvious "no" answer

there is the strategic question of "should" ... logistics, international response from both friends and enemies, etc

there is the question of "are they able to?" ....logistics, funding, international interventions, internal resistance, etc.

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

Why should we?

Despite what the trashy media feeds you with, we Israelis don't do genocide, and most of our actions in this conflict are purely defensive. The only ones genociding the Palestinians so far were the Jordanians and the Lebanese Christians. Israel doesn't commit a genocide of the Palestinians for a simple reason that Israel neither wants it nor needs it.

Czardas, this is pathetic. How much farther back do you want to go? we were all bacteria once. Tit-for-tat is not a debate.I'm going back to the 400s or so AD, when Israel was taken over by the Arabs. Arabs and Jews coexisted there until the Crusades, when the Jews of Israel were massacred first by Crusaders and then by Turks attacking. The Turks stayed on until they became Palestinians in the 1940s.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The lack of knowledge in Palestine amazes me on this group. There is currently a genocide occuring. Most people in the world recognize it. Putting people into camps and putting up a "seperation wall" (apartheid wall) is a form of genocide. Another form of genocide is to deprive Palestinians of water and food by forcing them off their lands (along the lines of the american indians here in this country.) Reading Chomsky's Fateful Triangle would allow one the knowledge on this issue. The current leadership of Israel, especially Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who has been indicted by the world court for orchastrating the massacres at sabra and shatilla refugee camps, were he led troops on a veritable death march. There is a genocide occuring, the US sponsers it by paying for israeli military tools. To say that arabs are bad fighters is ridiculous, white folk are getting slaughtered in Iraq. Arabs pushed whites out of Afghanistan in the 80s, out of Algeria in the 60s (Battle of Algiers) and normally, as in the case of Isarel, to have the world's #1 superpower arming you sorta ensure you're goin to win. The US sponsors this genocide because it gives it a strategic location in the middle east. Indeed, british officials who helped construct israel's existence said that their main impetus was to create a white face to work with in the region. Palestine, by most of the world, is considered to be a white settler population controlling and taking over a brown, forced into poverty situation. A good quote on this is Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel saying that there is no such thing as a palestinian, they don't exist.
www.electronicintifada.net could help some of you realize the reality of the situation. I can continue to debate this if people like.

Ok.. this will probably descend into a bitter slagging match between advocates of Palestinians and Israelis.

Why was this topic started? It appears someone just wanted to inflame opinions. Genocide is not, nor ever has been the answer to anything. The Israeli claim to land is based on Biblical 'fact' which is dubious at best. The REAL issue is why the F*** they haven't withdrawn from the 1967 borders?!

Technically speaking, they are both descendants of Abraham.

Same family. One might wonder what they were fighting about. Their inheritance?
I thought Jacob and Esau settled that years ago - something about selling a birthright, an almost blind father, and an animal skin?

To say that arabs are bad fighters is ridiculous, white folk are getting slaughtered in Iraq. Arabs pushed whites out of Afghanistan in the 80s, out of Algeria in the 60s (Battle of Algiers) and normally, as in the case of Isarel, to have the world's #1 superpower arming you sorta ensure you're goin to win.

If it was a genocide in Palestine, the Palestinians would already be dead. So it isn't genocide. Sorry.

And let's look at the Iraq numbers. The Viet Cong fought the Americans, and inflicted eight times the deaths and ten times the casualties that the insurgents in Iraq manage. The Iraqi insurgents cannot fight any stand up battles like the Viet Cong because they all get killed in the process (Fallujah). I've seen the video of how they shoot, and read the after action reports - most insurgents have no idea how to shoot. Most casualties inflicted by insurgents come from explosives - rarely from guns.

Arabs who won in Afghanistan were trained and equipped by the US. Taught how to shoot, for one thing.

Algiers won against the French - the French are losers.

In the initial battle for Israel, the US did not arm anyone. Sorry. The Arabs outgunned and outnumbered them, and still had their asses handed to them.

I've trained many Arabs. Most of them can't shoot - even if their life depended on it. When I was in the first Gulf War, it became pitifully apparent that the few Iraqis I shot from a distance had absolutely NO chance to hit me, no matter how many shots they fired in my direction - they were helpless and essentially defenseless in their incompetence as soldiers.

Putting people into camps and putting up a "seperation wall" (apartheid wall) is a form of genocide.
What . the . fuck ??? :eek:

Building a wall is genocide?

Jesus... WTF are they teaching in schools/colleges nowdays???

Just a reminder, people: This is a potentially contentious and controversial topic. Please remember to stay civil. There are some slightly heated tempers, but for the most part, everyone here is being civil; I'd like to keep it that way.

Carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I've trained many Arabs. Most of them can't shoot - even if their life depended on it. When I was in the first Gulf War, it became pitifully apparent that the few Iraqis I shot from a distance had absolutely NO chance to hit me, no matter how many shots they fired in my direction - they were helpless and essentially defenseless in their incompetence as soldiers.

Thats true. But what have they got to fight for? Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt all don't give two figs for the Palestinians.
Afghanis were fighting for their freedom as were the Algerians.

The Iraqis will pick up the pace.

The palestinians only have bloody rocks!! Either that or their own bodies.

The lack of knowledge in Palestine amazes me on this group.
Yes. You make a prime example.


There is currently a genocide occuring.
Aww really? Where and how? Enlighten us.


Most people in the world recognize it.
Don't confuse yourself for the world. It's an easy mistake to make, I know- but try not to ;)


Putting people into camps
Where???


and putting up a "seperation wall" (apartheid wall) is a form of genocide.
Oh yes. Those walls just love to slaughter people. Concrete is sooooo carnivorous :rolleyes:


Another form of genocide is to deprive Palestinians of water and food by forcing them off their lands (along the lines of the american indians here in this country.)
Another load of bull.


Reading Chomsky's Fateful Triangle would allow one the knowledge on this issue.
Oh yes. Chomsky is widely known as a prophet of the ultimate Truth, don't we all know that :rolleyes:


The current leadership of Israel, especially Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who has been indicted by the world court for orchastrating the massacres at sabra and shatilla refugee camps, were he led troops on a veritable death march.

What world court? When did it convict Sharon of anything? When did he lead troops on a "death march"? The ones committing the Sabra and Shatilla massacre weren't even Israelis, for crying out loud, they were Elias Hbeika's Phalangist guys. Get a clue. You are making an unbelievable mess of the basic facts.


To say that arabs are bad fighters is ridiculous, white folk are getting slaughtered in Iraq. Arabs pushed whites out of Afghanistan in the 80s, out of Algeria in the 60s (Battle of Algiers) and normally, as in the case of Isarel, to have the world's #1 superpower arming you sorta ensure you're goin to win.
We didn't have the US on our side back in 1948, nor in 1956, nor even in 1967. In all three of these wars we were outnumbered and undergunned, and yet we've beaten the Arab armies.


Indeed, british officials who helped construct israel's existence said that their main impetus was to create a white face to work with in the region.
More bull. The Brits were so pro-Arab they've actually fought on the side of the Arabs in 1948, trying to destroy Israel. Check out who was in command of the Arab Legion, the army of Transjordan, back then. They were headed by the British general sir John Glubb (a.k.a. Glubb pasha), and almost the entire officer rank of the Legion was held by high ranking British army officers. Moreover, there were even actual clashes between the Israeli air force and the RAF during the war, and I am proud to say that our guys shot down five British Spitfires without losing a single plane of ours.


Palestine, by most of the world, is considered to be a white settler population controlling and taking over a brown, forced into poverty situation.
1)Like I said, stop confusing yourself for the world.
2)If the Israelis are white settlers and the Arabs are "brown", how come Sharon is so obviously darker skinned that Arafart was? Is Israel's president Moshe Katsav, born in Iran, "white"? Is Israel's foreign minister Silvan Shalom, second generation Moroccan Jew, "white"? What about the Yemenite Jews, by far darker skinned than any Palestinian? Is the Knesset member Adiso Massala (a black Ethiopean Jew) also "white"?

The entire race argument is simply meaningless when applied to the Arab-Israeli divide.


www.electronicintifada.net could help some of you realize the reality of the situation.
Or feed some of you with venomous propaganda.


I can continue to debate this if people like.
As you wish.

The palestinians only have bloody rocks!! Either that or their own bodies.
Well, if you ask feminists, the "my own body" argument trumps all.

:p

Thats true. But what have they got to fight for? Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt all don't give two figs for the Palestinians.
Afghanis were fighting for their freedom as were the Algerians.

The Iraqis will pick up the pace.

The palestinians only have bloody rocks!! Either that or their own bodies.

The Palestinians have rifles, pistols, RPGs, and home made artillery rockets.

Plenty of rifle and pistol ammunition.

Unlike Hezbollah, who used to inflict 10 dead Israeli soldiers for every 1 Hezbollah killed (probably the best performance in the Arab world), the Palestinians have a really hard time killing Israeli soldiers in firefights.

At night, it's a one sided massacre. Not being able to fight at night is a severe disadvantage nowadays.

Well in fairness to the Chabra and Shatilla camps, the Phalangists DID butcher the refugees... WHILE the IDF stood outside and did nothing about it. Thats a crime in itself. And i'm surprised you're defending the slaughter of innocents0 regardless of where theyre from or what creed they are.

Unlike Hezbollah, who used to inflict 10 dead Israeli soldiers for every 1 Hezbollah killed (probably the best performance in the Arab world)
There was NEVER such a ratio of casualties. There was never even a 1:1 ratio between Israel and the Hizbullah.

The Palestinians have rifles, pistols, RPGs, and home made artillery rockets.

Plenty of rifle and pistol ammunition.



oohhh... im sure the IDF is quaking in their US tanks and Fighter jets while the Palestinians pop off bb guns at them. :rolleyes:

If you're not prepared to die for it; remove Freedom from your vocabulary.

Jesus... WTF are they teaching in schools/colleges nowdays???
Why ask Jesus? Go find out yourself.

Well in fairness to the Chabra and Shatilla camps, the Phalangists DID butcher the refugees... WHILE the IDF stood outside and did nothing about it. Thats a crime in itself. And i'm surprised you're defending the slaughter of innocents0 regardless of where theyre from or what creed they are.
If you're talking to me, I did not defend the slaughter, not at all. I was pointing out that Haywoods had completely and utterly misrepresented the affair. If the IDF was guilty of anything, it was underestimating of the Phalangist bloodlust and desire for revenge for their assassinated president- and for the earlier massacre of the town of Damour by the Palestinian Sai'qa militia.

If the IDF was guilty of anything, it was underestimating of the Phalangist bloodlust and desire for revenge for their assassinated president-

Oh, COME ON! There is NO way on this EARTH that the IDF Chiefs and the govt did not see that coming, ESPECIALLY as you point out in retal for previous massacres and asassinations. They turned the other way and are as guilty as the Phalangists.

*Not you- the then military and govt chiefs- i'd like to make that one clear*

Oh, COME ON! There is NO way on this EARTH that the IDF Chiefs and the govt did not see that coming, ESPECIALLY as you point out in retal for previous massacres and asassinations. They turned the other way and are as guilty as the Phalangists.

*Not you- the then military and govt chiefs- i'd like to make that one clear*
They can't be "as guilty as the Phalangists" either way. One who commits murder and one who does nothing to prevent it are both guilty, but this is not an equal guilt.

That said, I am not at all convinced that they "turned the other way". Clashing with an important ally was not a decision that could be taken by a mid-rank officer in charge of the IDF troops around Sabra and Shatilla. It would probably be morally correct, but to be legally correct, it required approval from the very top of the chain of command- from Ariel Sharon, the then defense minister. I have reasons to believe that the massacre was committed while the demand to interfere was making its way up the chain of command through the army bureaucracy. Which would make the IDF far less guilty than the UN troops who had handed the Alban refugees to the Serbs for slaughter in Srebrenica. What's up with them, btw? Why is no one demanding to put those guys on trial?

Hell, why did nobody put Hbeika, the actual perpetrator of Sabra and Shatilla slaughter, on trial? Why focus all the attention on those guilty of inaction, when those with blood on their hands went unpunished?

Unlike Hezbollah, who used to inflict 10 dead Israeli soldiers for every 1 Hezbollah killed. hezbollah flies spy drones into Israel's airspace...and israel cant stop them !!!

hezbollah flies spy drones into Israel's airspace...and israel cant stop them !!!
Drones are generally hard to detect. Too small for a radar.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.
Sounds like something out of the Old Testament.

I'm going back to the 400s or so AD, when Israel was taken over by the Arabs.
But if you go too far back, it looses all meaning. I mean, I can’t really keep grieving about those (Bloody) Romans that invaded Gaul, bringing in their Christianity and demonising Goddess Worship, now can I?

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?


It would be kind of paradoxal to see the Jews commit a genocide after getting Israel, from crying they where victims of the German genocide.

Algiers won against the French - the French are losers.

This is just has misinformed that saying:
Vietnamese won against american - american are loser
( and yes i know french lost to them before american came, but losing 80 000 man to realise the french where rigth to leave is also dumb)

Just get over the fact France did'nt get brainwashed like you at going against Iraq for fake reason. Have you heard of Galloway or the Britsh memo lately. there is other culture who like to use theire brain before going into a war. Damn!

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

Israel is hated enough in the Middle East as it is. If they launched a genocide campaign against the Palestinians, Israel would end up a glowing, radioactive crater of fused glass. End of story. (Of course, they'd launch everything they had at their attackers as well.)

During the initial struggle for the land, it was pretty evenly matched in terms of technology and weaponry. In fact, there were far, far more armed Arabs.

Not blind. They just suck.

The Israelis controlled the skies, by far, and thats what gave them the upper advantage versus the arabs. The only relevant air force that could actually contend was that of the Egyptians who pulled out of the war.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine created the nationstate of Isreal. Are you against the United Nations?

Let me remind the anti-Isreali folks. Arabs have a right to vote in Isreal. Arabs can hold office in Isreal. Why? Because the Arabs and Druzes do not blow up pizza parlors full of Kindergarten children having a birthday party.

before the Isrealis destroyed it, Palestinian state TV (no private broadcast were allowed) had a kids show hosted by a Barney ripoff with songs about Jihad and killing Isrealis. The episode I saw was little Palestinian kids were being brainwashed to hate the Jew because he is a Jew.

Hamas has earned genocide. Hezzbollah has earned genocide. The Palestinian people have been screwed deserve better but not by murdering innocent people.

As former New York Times Middle East bureau chief Thomas Freidman quoted a young Syrian girl, "The killing will go on until the Arabs (Palestinians as well) love their children more than they hate the Jews."

As former New York Times Middle East bureau chief Thomas Freidman quoted a young Syrian girl, "The killing will go on until the Arabs (Palestinians as well) love their children more than they hate the Jews."

-Israel dumps some of its trash in 'Palestine.'
-Palestinians have to submit to a humiliating routine of searches and pass checks when trying to commute to Israel (reminiscent of Apartheid South Africa, anyone?)
-Israel is building a 20something foot high wall WITHIN territories that are legally palestinian, essentially taking their land just because they can.
-Israeli snipers have fired multiple times into Palestinian Elementary and Pre Schools without provocation and without being in combat. Solely target practice.
-An Israeli soldier who emptied his weapon clip into the body of a lone 12 year old girl was only charged for Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and Inappropriate Weapons Discharge, in the end only sentenced to a few months in prison. No Israeli soldier, no matter how obvious the case against him, has ever been convicted of killing a civilian.
-For every Palestinian attack on Israelis, succesful or not, Israel indiscriminately bulldozes the houses of several completely innocent people.
-Israel send Tanks through Palestinian territory indiscriminately.
-Soldiers have been repeatedly found to have killed teenagers and children, some throwing small rocks, without being in any real danger.

Most Palestinians want the Intifada to be well and truly over, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't resent those illegally occupying their state.

oh, and Thomas Freidman...
he also called Arafat “the bad man” who “introduced a whole new level of terrorism to world politics.”

p.s. no, i'm not antisemetic or any of that bullshit, some of my best friends are jews. in fact, many of the nicest people i've ever met have been jewish; i just have a problem with Zionists.

-Israel dumps some of its trash in 'Palestine.'
-Palestinians have to submit to a humiliating routine of searches and pass checks when trying to commute to Israel

i wonder why?


-oh, and Thomas Freidman...
he also called Arafat “the bad man” who “introduced a whole new level of terrorism to world politics.”

1965: Tried to blow up a water pump station
1967: Dressed as a woman to escape Isreal...I wonder if he was wearing lipstick?
1970: Took control of PLO Conspired with Syria to attack Jordan...failed
1972: al Fatah, his personal organization, murdered 11 Olympic athletes in Munich
1970's: responsible for massacres (along with all sides) in Lebanon
1980's: organized terror cells in Isreal
1985: involved with Achille Lauro hijacking (terrorist shot a man in a wheelchair and tossed him in the water)
1990's: founded the al Asqa martyr brigades (suicide bombers) How many innocent civilians have been murdered by them?
paid money to the families of suicide bombers ($10,000)



-p.s. no, i'm not antisemetic or any of that bullshit

"I'm not an anti Semite but Arafat wasn't that bad of a guy" Arafat was a terrorist burning in hell now.

"I'm not an anti Semite but Arafat wasn't that bad of a guy" Arafat was a terrorist burning in hell now.

I feel absolutely retarded; I confused Arafat with Sharon.

And yeah, Arafat did some totally dick things.

But starting in the early 90's, he really changed for the better. Before Rabin was assassinated, they had managed to make major strides towards peace under the supervision of the Clinton administration.

The peacemaker assassinated by a zionist; what better proof is there that Zionism is inherantly evil?

I don't believe Arafat was a good man overall, but I think his true goal was peace for his people. The ends often were not enough to justify the means, but the means must be recognised.

EDIT: Oh, and you didn't respond to any of my other statements.

Let me remind the anti-Isreali folks. Arabs have a right to vote in Isreal. Arabs can hold office in Isreal. Why? Because the Arabs and Druzes do not blow up pizza parlors full of Kindergarten children having a birthday party.

Hezzbollah has earned genocide.

Actually, neither of these staements is wholly accurate (the second one depends on your own pov)

Arabs inside Israel 'proper' are allowed voting rights, stand for election and some are members of the Knesset, its the Arabs in the post-1967 borders- that of the Occupied Territories that have no such rights and ARE essentially treated as second class citizens.

As for Hezb'allah, they are generally considered to be more of a resistance movement, dissimilar to al-Fatah, al-Asqa Martyrs etc as they were fighting the illegal occupation and invasion of southern and eventaully most of the sovereign state of Lebanon from the 80's onwards. They have quitened down for the most part since the IDF withdrew- but i believe there is still sporadic violence over the disputed ???? Farms area?

And no i'm not Anti-Israeli, i try to see the pov from both sides. The suicide bombings etc are bad enough as it is- but the larger problem i personally have is with the continued Israeli governments disregard for 47 different UN resolutions.

Im not nessecairaly for or against the israelis or palestinians, but I agree that the most effective way for them to handle this would be genocide. Same with the US in Iraq. War means the death of many. If you arent willing to do everything in your power to win, then you dont deserve to win.

Im not nessecairaly for or against the israelis or palestinians, but I agree that the most effective way for them to handle this would be genocide. Same with the US in Iraq. War means the death of many. If you arent willing to do everything in your power to win, then you dont deserve to win.

An absolutist theory- but a recognised one at that.
Problem is- it dehumanises the soldiers and the society at large. Also, it invalidates what the country as a liberal democracy stands for- it becomes no better than the common 'terrorist'. Genocide would work in an unethical society, but could society as a whole continue to exist without the overburdening guilt of what it had to do to achieve peace? :(

Im not nessecairaly for or against the israelis or palestinians, but I agree that the most effective way for them to handle this would be genocide. Same with the US in Iraq. War means the death of many. If you arent willing to do everything in your power to win, then you dont deserve to win.

what is winning if it means having won nothing? To commit genocide in Iraq would destroy everything worth commiting genocide for. In terms of Israel, if there had to be a genocide, i think it should be the Israelis who are killed. They are fewer in number and are the newcomers in the region. This would, however, destroy the only goal worth achieving in that scenario: peace in the middle east.

what is winning if it means having won nothing? To commit genocide in Iraq would destroy everything worth commiting genocide for. In terms of Israel, if there had to be a genocide, i think it should be the Israelis who are killed. They are fewer in number and are the newcomers in the region. This would, however, destroy the only goal worth achieving in that scenario: peace in the middle east.
Genocide in Iraq. What would it achieve?

1. No more iraqi problems. Period.

2. Oil reserves completely under our control. Because, after genocide, it would be annexed(iraq, that is).

3. A new american territory. It may not be the most prosperous region, but im sure that an influx of americans, over time, could turn it into something more profitable than the Iraqi's ever would.

4. None of the middle eastern nations, even combined, could stop us. Israel could do signifigant damage, but not without being glassed(assuming it used nukes, or even opposed us). If any nation in the middle east acted up, we could destroy their militaries, and then commit genocide again. Thats eventual peace in the middle east.

An absolutist theory- but a recognised one at that.
Problem is- it dehumanises the soldiers and the society at large. Also, it invalidates what the country as a liberal democracy stands for- it becomes no better than the common 'terrorist'. Genocide would work in an unethical society, but could society as a whole continue to exist without the overburdening guilt of what it had to do to achieve peace? :(

If people feel guilt over doing what is nessecary to win, its their own faults. Again, if one isnt able to do what is nessecary to win a war, they dont deserve to win. Morals be damned.

There is also the slight issue that ISREAL HAS NO RIGHT TO PALISTINIAN LAND! The Israeli’s moved in and took over Palestine claiming it as their own on the back of WW2 sympathy. The American's fully supported the emigration of Jewish peoples to Israel as it was felt they needed a home. What about the Palestinians? Because of Jewish-American actions they no longer have a sovereign state to call their own and live in abject Poverty. The Israeli settlers started the first war, continued to act aggressively towards the Palestinians by stealing their land and making illegal townships in Palestinian territories. They are doing to the Palestinian what the USA did to the Native Americans because of their belief in the 'Manifest Destiny' The Israeli’s hold the same belief now. If anybody should be killed it is the Israeli’s not the Palestinians.
Except we had the same land 2000 years ago. Roman soldiers took it away from us. So now we got what was promised to us. And there is no way Jewish settlers started the first war. As soon as the UN troops left Israel, ALL of its neighbors immediately declared war on Israel and moved in the troops.



You forgot the Arab insurection of 1929. Jews were living in Jerusalem for a few hundred years up to that point
Very few of them were. Most people living there were Arabs. Jewish immigration started in the late 50's.


I'm no expert on U.S. - Israel relations, but I am under the impression that a great deal of Isreali weapons technology comes from the U.S. Do you really think that the U.S. would continue to supply them with anything if Israel started a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians? Without U.S. support the surrounding Arabic countries would likely fight a long battle of attrition against the much smaller, and (assuming a U.S. embargo of weapons) poorly equipped Jewish State
A lot of technology comes from Israel. Especially medical and military.

Despite what the trashy media feeds you with, we Israelis don't do genocide, and most of our actions in this conflict are purely defensive. The only ones genociding the Palestinians so far were the Jordanians and the Lebanese Christians. Israel doesn't commit a genocide of the Palestinians for a simple reason that Israel neither wants it nor needs it. Nor do all Palestinians deserve death. Most are decent people, it's the actions of few that are death-deserving.

The lack of knowledge in Palestine amazes me on this group. There is currently a genocide occuring. Most people in the world recognize it. Putting people into camps and putting up a "seperation wall" (apartheid wall) is a form of genocide. Another form of genocide is to deprive Palestinians of water and food by forcing them off their lands (along the lines of the american indians here in this country.) Reading Chomsky's Fateful Triangle would allow one the knowledge on this issue. The current leadership of Israel, especially Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who has been indicted by the world court for orchastrating the massacres at sabra and shatilla refugee camps, were he led troops on a veritable death march. There is a genocide occuring, the US sponsers it by paying for israeli military tools. To say that arabs are bad fighters is ridiculous, white folk are getting slaughtered in Iraq. Arabs pushed whites out of Afghanistan in the 80s, out of Algeria in the 60s (Battle of Algiers) and normally, as in the case of Isarel, to have the world's #1 superpower arming you sorta ensure you're goin to win. The US sponsors this genocide because it gives it a strategic location in the middle east. Indeed, british officials who helped construct israel's existence said that their main impetus was to create a white face to work with in the region. Palestine, by most of the world, is considered to be a white settler population controlling and taking over a brown, forced into poverty situation. A good quote on this is Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel saying that there is no such thing as a palestinian, they don't exist.
www.electronicintifada.net could help some of you realize the reality of the situation. I can continue to debate this if people like.
What camps? Noone forces Arabs to stay in those camps. And the wall simply makes it harder for terrorists to come into Israeli cities and kill innocent civilians. It serves no other purpose.

oohhh... im sure the IDF is quaking in their US tanks and Fighter jets while the Palestinians pop off bb guns at them.

If you're not prepared to die for it; remove Freedom from your vocabulary
Fool! The Meklava4 can match the M1-Abrams point for point. Israel has plenty of their own tanks and military equipment.


hezbollah flies spy drones into Israel's airspace...and israel cant stop them !!!
And USA crossed USSR over and through on the U2 planes. It's almost impossible to detect a spy, especially the tiny ass drones.

Vietnamese won against american - american are loser
French were losing to the Vietcong a lot worse than the US. The french simply cannot fight, their military is full of crap. US would easily quell the rebellion.

Israel is hated enough in the Middle East as it is. If they launched a genocide campaign against the Palestinians, Israel would end up a glowing, radioactive crater of fused glass. End of story. (Of course, they'd launch everything they had at their attackers as well.)
Well, first, Israel has nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Second, Middle Eastern nations do not have nukes.

-Israel dumps some of its trash in 'Palestine.'
-Palestinians have to submit to a humiliating routine of searches and pass checks when trying to commute to Israel (reminiscent of Apartheid South Africa, anyone?)
Of course. Since all terrorist are Palestinian, it only makes sense to make sure that all Palestinians commuting are not terrorists.

-Israel is building a 20something foot high wall WITHIN territories that are legally palestinian, essentially taking their land just because they can.
"Legally palestinian" according to whom? the Palestinians?
-Israeli snipers have fired multiple times into Palestinian Elementary and Pre Schools without provocation and without being in combat. Solely target practice.
Deserted schools? Or were they not even schools at all? And Palestinian terrorists launch rockets in the civilian quarters

-An Israeli soldier who emptied his weapon clip into the body of a lone 12 year old girl was only charged for Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and Inappropriate Weapons Discharge, in the end only sentenced to a few months in prison. No Israeli soldier, no matter how obvious the case against him, has ever been convicted of killing a civilian.
Was the girl alive? Was the girl a terrorist? Was the girl threatening him? and Palestinain soldiers empting the clip into Israeli children simply get praise
-For every Palestinian attack on Israelis, succesful or not, Israel indiscriminately bulldozes the houses of several completely innocent people
-Israel send Tanks through Palestinian territory indiscriminately.
-Soldiers have been repeatedly found to have killed teenagers and children, some throwing small rocks, without being in any real danger.

Retaliation, security. And you clearly haven't seen those "small" rocks, which can break through the skull of an adult.

The peacemaker assassinated by a zionist; what better proof is there that Zionism is inherantly evil?

The "peacemaker" was a traitor to the Israeli people planning to give away A LOT of land to palestinians. he deserved death.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine created the nationstate of Isreal. Are you against the United Nations?

I think a better question would be: Did the United Nations really have the authority to do this? Before you answer, remember that the United States invaded Iraq against the UN's wishes.

The Israelis also committed terrorist attacks upon the English and the Palestinians in order to force them from the territory.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians are entitled to do what they do, but the fact remains that Israel is hardly innocent in this matter.

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?
Why not kill the Isrelis?
Jerusalem...Muslim controll, Christian controll, Jewish controll bla bla bla. I say bomb both nations to Jew and/or Muslim hell. That way CNN will ive the rest of us a break.
Just a joke but really...the U.S. backing Israel is not the smarted thing, it's not like they are the victims in this. They sure as hell aint no angels, thats for sure.

what is winning if it means having won nothing? To commit genocide in Iraq would destroy everything worth commiting genocide for. In terms of Israel, if there had to be a genocide, i think it should be the Israelis who are killed. They are fewer in number and are the newcomers in the region. This would, however, destroy the only goal worth achieving in that scenario: peace in the middle east.
ISraelis have a much larger armies. And you can be sure that if someone begins a genocidal war against Israel, millions of Jews, including me, will uproot and move to Israel and take a rifle in their hands. Because those repeating Hitler's genocide, will not stop in Israel, but will try to spread all over the globe.

I don't understand why there are so many idiots who think that the Palestinians have it easy.

French were losing to the Vietcong a lot worse than the US. The french simply cannot fight, their military is full of crap. US would easily quell the rebellion.

Wow, random french hate. Gotta love it.

The US lost in vietnam. The french lost in vietnam. The French could have won, if Eisenhower hadn't backed down from helping the French with bomber support in Dien Bien Phu. The US couldnt win the war, even with massive bomber support, and many more soldiers than the French. Says something about the US.

ISraelis have a much larger armies. And you can be sure that if someone begins a genocidal war against Israel, millions of Jews, including me, will uproot and move to Israel and take a rifle in their hands. Because those repeating Hitler's genocide, will not stop in Israel, but will try to spread all over the globe.
It's a pity that more people didn't have this attitude in Rwanda or Sudan.

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?


As far as i can see the one and ONLY way to achieve some kind of lasting "peace" in that war thorn region is that one side MUST be completly destroyed, be it the jews or the palestinians/arabs. :mp5:

Choose ur side LOL..................... :D

Except we had the same land 2000 years ago. Roman soldiers took it away from us. So now we got what was promised to us. And there is no way Jewish settlers started the first war.


Fool! The Meklava4 can match the M1-Abrams point for point. Israel has plenty of their own tanks and military equipment.


1)... promised from whom exactly?.... and please don't quote the bible- it has no veracity in international law.

2)First war meaning..... what? In the 40's when your terrorists the Stern Gang, and the Irgun (oops, sorry freedom fighters) bombed British installations (both civilain and military), was that the start you meant.

3)I was merely drawing the comparision between the overwhelming firepower the IDF has at its disposal compared to the bb guns and homemade fireworks of the Palestinians. Not disparaging the IDF tech.

Wow, random french hate. Gotta love it.

The US lost in vietnam. The french lost in vietnam. The French could have won, if Eisenhower hadn't backed down from helping the French with bomber support in Dien Bien Phu. The US couldnt win the war, even with massive bomber support, and many more soldiers than the French. Says something about the US.

Yes, is says you cannot win a war, despite superiority of equipment. It says you cannot win a war despite winning every major clash in that war and most of the small clashes. It says you cannot win a war when you destroy the infrastructure of you opposition. It says that when you accomplish all those things you cannot win a war if the people of your nation lose belief and support in that war and so give up while your opposition keeps their drive and faith and keeps fighting.
The loss in Vietnam had little to do with military capability and a lot to do with national spirit and goals.
(sorry for the small hijack)

Building a wall to keep one group of people from jobs, food, water, their crops, and basically sealing them out of the civilization they depend on for desire is a form of genocide. One of the stupider things said is "if it was a genocide, they would all be dead". There are still jews alive today, so there was no genocide? There are still american indians alive today...was there no genocide?

Genocide in Iraq. What would it achieve?

1. No more iraqi problems. Period.


because there would be no Iraq in which to be problems.


2. Oil reserves completely under our control. Because, after genocide, it would be annexed(iraq, that is).


but there would be no one to tend them for us. plus if you think the iraqis would let us get away with killing them without taking every single spoil of war down with them, you're severely mistaken.


3. A new american territory. It may not be the most prosperous region, but im sure that an influx of americans, over time, could turn it into something more profitable than the Iraqi's ever would.


Are nations only about profit? Anyway, every single country in the Muslim world, plus some others, would declare war on us. Iran (if it develops the bomb by then) will unload on us with everything it has, and we'll have an even bigger insurgency problem than we have now (there won't be any civilians to get in the way of their plans).


4. None of the middle eastern nations, even combined, could stop us. Israel could do signifigant damage, but not without being glassed(assuming it used nukes, or even opposed us). If any nation in the middle east acted up, we could destroy their militaries, and then commit genocide again. Thats eventual peace in the middle east.

Do you have any idea how much manpower/resources it would take to occupy a region big enough to be its own continent? We would completely deplete the entire treasure just occupying these countries, then to commit genocide would cost far more than we could ever hope to pay off, even IF a nation agrees to grant us some loans that massive. Without money, our economy would collapse, eventually leading to the breakdown of law and order. Our nation would dissolve.

Wouldn't it be indirectly hippocritical if Jews killed masses of Arabs. They understand the horrors of mass genocide from the holocaust. I would consider them inhumane if they did.

because there would be no Iraq in which to be problems.

Does it matter why?

but there would be no one to tend them for us. plus if you think the iraqis would let us get away with killing them without taking every single spoil of war down with them, you're severely mistaken.

The US military would protect it, and the people who went to iraq would operate them(incentive for going would be job possibilities).

Are nations only about profit? Anyway, every single country in the Muslim world, plus some others, would declare war on us. Iran (if it develops the bomb by then) will unload on us with everything it has, and we'll have an even bigger insurgency problem than we have now (there won't be any civilians to get in the way of their plans).

Not only for profit, but its a big thing and important. None of the nations could bring substantial resistance to us, other than nations with nuclear weapons. As for Iran, if it uses a bomb(Which it most likely doesnt have, and wont have for years even trying), it would get glassed within hours. Assuming it doesnt use nuclear weapons, it wouldnt be a big problem. It couldnt even beat Iraq in the 80's. Air power would obliterate its ground forces, then mobile ground forces would wipe up.

Do you have any idea how much manpower/resources it would take to occupy a region big enough to be its own continent? We would completely deplete the entire treasure just occupying these countries, then to commit genocide would cost far more than we could ever hope to pay off, even IF a nation agrees to grant us some loans that massive. Without money, our economy would collapse, eventually leading to the breakdown of law and order. Our nation would dissolve.

Hardly. You dont seem to understand genocide. There wouldn't be signifigant occupation. Anything seen moving, and not allied, would be shot. Daisy cutters and/or MOABs on larger cities. Bombing runs and AC-130 runs on smaller cities. Artillery on smaller targets. It could be done very methodically, if you didnt have to discriminate between civilians and military whatsoever. The us would need enough people to patrol the occupied territories, but with satelites, they would really only need to watch for signifigant groups of non-americans, and to close the borders of occupied nations. It would cost less money that we are spending now, because we wouldnt have to worry so much about percision, etc. Bullets are cheap and plentiful. Munitions are more expensive, but still not that expensive.



Replies in bold.

Im not nessecairaly for or against the israelis or palestinians, but I agree that the most effective way for them to handle this would be genocide. Same with the US in Iraq. War means the death of many. If you arent willing to do everything in your power to win, then you dont deserve to win.
the notion of killing all the men and boy, selling the women and girls into slavery, and salting the earth so that nothing will ever grow there again has kinda gone out of favor. some people even consider it immoral.

"Legally palestinian" according to whom? the Palestinians?

Deserted schools? Or were they not even schools at all? And Palestinian terrorists launch rockets in the civilian quarters

Was the girl alive? Was the girl a terrorist? Was the girl threatening him? and Palestinain soldiers empting the clip into Israeli children simply get praise

Retaliation, security. And you clearly haven't seen those "small" rocks, which can break through the skull of an adult.

The "peacemaker" was a traitor to the Israeli people planning to give away A LOT of land to palestinians. he deserved death.

a) According to the original agreements to make TWO seperate states, Israel and Palestine.

b) these snipers are in israeli guard towers. the schools are full and DEFINITELY in use. yeah, palestinians use rocket launchers in civilian quarters, but they almost never kill someone, and they aren't working with the targetting equipment israelis are that makes it so easy to kill schoolchildren.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09F42BA1-E46F-4986-9B86-3125A04E5048.htm

c) palestine does not have soldiers, merely unorganized rabble. the killing of children is never applause-worthy. and this girl was unarmed. the captain who had her killed then 'confirmed' the kill by emptying his clip into her body.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6951

d) yeah, cause nine year olds can totally lift rocks that can threaten the lives of soldiers in tanks.

e) ... you mean... return palestinian land back to those who had been run off it? yeah, right, he deserved to die.

Why not live in peace? That would be the best option. However both sides don't seem to really want it. And until they do, there is not much any one can do about it.

2)First war meaning..... what? In the 40's when your terrorists the Stern Gang, and the Irgun (oops, sorry freedom fighters) bombed British installations (both civilain and military), was that the start you meant.
Israeli War of Independence (1948-1949)
Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis.

Wow, random french hate. Gotta love it.

The US lost in vietnam. The french lost in vietnam. The French could have won, if Eisenhower hadn't backed down from helping the French with bomber support in Dien Bien Phu. The US couldnt win the war, even with massive bomber support, and many more soldiers than the French. Says something about the US.
No, the US lost because our gov't was busy playing panzy ass politics instead of playing to win. They were too busy being politically correct due to the media intrusion into the war to actually fight a war. They didn't have the guts to do what needed to be done to win. Period.

Replies in bold.

Do you actually have any inclination or clue WHATSOEVER as to the size of Iran???

Do us a favour, go look at a map- compare it to Iraq. The US can't even control THAT without foreign assistance and a few dozen thousand local hired milita. The US army is tiny compared to Iran and especially the rest of the Middle East combined.

You can have all the fancy high tech ordinance like- you still need troops on the ground to hold the territory. Air power doesn't win wars alone.

Replies in bold.

a) yeah, the US military is obviously capable of doing SUCH a good job of protecting strategic resources.

b) iran would've wiped the floor with iraq if reagan hadn't been funding saddam's army and giving him chemical weapons. note that around the height of that era, iraq had the third most powerful army in the world.

c) we're having a tough enough time finding 140,000 soldiers to occupy a single country. the days in which armies of millions just sweep through countries at every single point on their border is long over. and while bullets are cheap, lives, bombs, munitions (tank, etc), tanks, aircraft and artillary are not.

i'd say we're both giving ourselves a little leeway in our arguments, but it comes down to this: we could never pull off the genocide. if we did succeed in causing one, we ourselves would die out in the aftermath.

Israeli War of Independence (1948-1949)
Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis.

yes, the key here being WAR OF INDEPENDENCE with the British i believe... then later came the Arab League. So the Israelis DID in fact start 'the first war'.

No, the US lost because our gov't was busy playing panzy ass politics instead of playing to win. They were too busy being politically correct due to the media intrusion into the war to actually fight a war. They didn't have the guts to do what needed to be done to win. Period.
while that is true...

there was nothing there for us to "win"

they werent our enemies and they werent a danger to us. what would winning BE but crushing people who wanted independance?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09F42BA1-E46F-4986-9B86-3125A04E5048.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6951
Now THERE's a credible news source. :rolleyes:

a) According to the original agreements to make TWO seperate states, Israel and Palestine.

b) these snipers are in israeli guard towers. the schools are full and DEFINITELY in use. yeah, palestinians use rocket launchers in civilian quarters, but they almost never kill someone, and they aren't working with the targetting equipment israelis are that makes it so easy to kill schoolchildren.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09F42BA1-E46F-4986-9B86-3125A04E5048.htm

c) palestine does not have soldiers, merely unorganized rabble. the killing of children is never applause-worthy. and this girl was unarmed. the captain who had her killed then 'confirmed' the kill by emptying his clip into her body.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6951

d) yeah, cause nine year olds can totally lift rocks that can threaten the lives of soldiers in tanks.

e) ... you mean... return palestinian land back to those who had been run off it? yeah, right, he deserved to die.
a) That agreement was invalidated when all Israel's neighbors invaded it in the Israel Independence War. I bet the Palestinians didn't talk about this agreement when their tanks were rolling over Israeli borders.

B)Yes, because AL Jazeera is totally trustable in delivering accurate information about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

C)Same comment for al jazeera. And he may have simply relieving her pain.

D)First off, you didn't say tanks. Second, a fairly light rock, when launched can break through the scull of an adult.

E)No, give palestinians the land that they got my running the jews of it.

yes, the key here being WAR OF INDEPENDENCE with the British i believe... then later came the Arab League. So the Israelis DID in fact start 'the first war'.
No, the british
A) supported ISrael independence and
B) Weren't even there. The war began only after the British troops left.

while that is true...

there was nothing there for us to "win"

they werent our enemies and they werent a danger to us. what would winning BE but crushing people who wanted independance?
I never said I agreed with our part in Vietnam. I was just pointing out why the US failed there.

Now THERE's a credible news source. :rolleyes:
FOX News : 'fair and balanced reporting'... yeah.. riiight. They're SO much more credible with a talkshow host as a combat reporter and a disgraced former US General on their team :rolleyes:

FOX News : 'fair and balanced reporting'... yeah.. riiight. They're SO much more credible with a talkshow host as a combat reporter and a disgraced former US General on their team :rolleyes:
Would you like to point out where I quoted Fox News or anything else for that matter? Or would you rather just flame me? :rolleyes:

Do you actually have any inclination or clue WHATSOEVER as to the size of Iran???

Do us a favour, go look at a map- compare it to Iraq. The US can't even control THAT without foreign assistance and a few dozen thousand local hired milita. The US army is tiny compared to Iran and especially the rest of the Middle East combined.

You can have all the fancy high tech ordinance like- you still need troops on the ground to hold the territory. Air power doesn't win wars alone.

a) yeah, the US military is obviously capable of doing SUCH a good job of protecting strategic resources.

b) iran would've wiped the floor with iraq if reagan hadn't been funding saddam's army and giving him chemical weapons. note that around the height of that era, iraq had the third most powerful army in the world.

c) we're having a tough enough time finding 140,000 soldiers to occupy a single country. the days in which armies of millions just sweep through countries at every single point on their border is long over. and while bullets are cheap, lives, bombs, munitions (tank, etc), tanks, aircraft and artillary are not.

i'd say we're both giving ourselves a little leeway in our arguments, but it comes down to this: we could never pull off the genocide. if we did succeed in causing one, we ourselves would die out in the aftermath.
WHAAAT???? US has more troops than any other country, save Russia and China. Iraq had no military, they had some pansy national guard, which is the size of a small batallion. And munition is very cheap, a can of Coke is more expensive than explosives of that same size.

Not to mention, that if we were doing genocide, which we shouldn't, we could simply drop neutron bombs on large cities, and then about half of the population will be gone.

Now THERE's a credible news source. :rolleyes:

yeah, they're partisan, but that conveniently means that they do the most reporting on this type of thing, making them the easiest place to find supporting articles.

yeah, they're partisan, but that conveniently means that they do the most reporting on this type of thing, making them the easiest place to find supporting articles.
Except they are unreliable and biased.

I never said I agreed with our part in Vietnam. I was just pointing out why the US failed there.
and i did agree with your analysis

B)Yes, because AL Jazeera is totally trustable in delivering accurate information about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

C)Same comment for al jazeera. And he may have simply relieving her pain.

D)First off, you didn't say tanks. Second, a fairly light rock, when launched can break through the scull of an adult.


Al Jazeera is better than most American and British media sources in fairness.

'relieving her pain' does NOT take an entire clip. One bullet would have done.

don't the IDF were helmets? but thats a petty point, ignore it.

On the Independance War: ok, my bad, accept your points.

On Fox news: i never said you did. It was a comparison bewteen the most popular Arab station and the most popular US station.... chill mate.

yeah, they're partisan, but that conveniently means that they do the most reporting on this type of thing, making them the easiest place to find supporting articles.
Of course that would be the easiest place to find them. Especially since Al Jazeera has a direct line with terrorists. Getting terrorist propaganda videos delivered to their doorstep, which they then air, makes them sooooooooo much more credible. :rolleyes:

a) That agreement was invalidated when all Israel's neighbors invaded it in the Israel Independence War. I bet the Palestinians didn't talk about this agreement when their tanks were rolling over Israeli borders.

B)Yes, because AL Jazeera is totally trustable in delivering accurate information about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

C)Same comment for al jazeera. And he may have simply relieving her pain.

D)First off, you didn't say tanks. Second, a fairly light rock, when launched can break through the scull of an adult.

E)No, give palestinians the land that they got my running the jews of it.

a) all the countries that invaded Israel after its founding were reacting to what they considered to be an invasion of their territories at the whim of the Western World. You can't just walk in somewhere, take the land from an established people, and declare it yours without some serious backlash. Also, the invasions were to little effect; the United States was funding and supplying most of Israel's military and training, while the other countries were almost all using world war one era rifles. tanks were out of the question.

b & c) yeah, al jazeera's partisan, but (especially in the school one) THEY ARE SPEAKING THE SAME OPINION AS THE UN HOLDS. These incidents are highly documented; do a search for them. I think even CNN covered the one of the girl being shot more than 20 times. And she was already dead when he killed her. Anyway, 'easing someones pain' does not constitute emptying your clip into their head and torso.

d) not when launched by nine year olds it cant.

e) i don't know if you've noticed, but the area that is now Israel was colonized, not founded by existing inhabitants. the palestinians were there first, and should be there last.

b & c) yeah, al jazeera's partisan, but (especially in the school one) THEY ARE SPEAKING THE SAME OPINION AS THE UN HOLDS.
...and the UN is not biased, never wrong and a supreme champion of human rights.

:rolleyes:^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

...and the UN is not biased, never wrong and a supreme champion of human rights.

:rolleyes:^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The UN is ineffective because we don't back it. if we helped it out, it would be obviously worth helping.

Oh, and are you accusing the UN of being biased on behalf of the Palestinians?

You really are from Texas, huh.

They don't because if Israel was brazen enough to drive the Palestinians to extinction, it would be a tremendous shockwave through the world the likes of which would make even 9-11 and Pearl Harbor pale in comparison.

It would be a propaganda coup and a rallying cry for Jihaidists on a scale that not even Osama Bin Ladin would have imagined possible. All the terrorist cells and networks who have been busy going about their own agendas would come together in an unprecedented cartel and possibly coordinate global attacks on those they hold responsible, primarily Israel and the United States.

"Remember the Palestinians."

Even the few Mid-East countries who supported or at least tolerated Israel won't be able to let this one slide. Al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups may or may not gain unprecedented appearance of legitimacy following the genocide.

And, if the United States were to somehow allow such a genocide to happen, it and Israel together would be alienated by the rest of the world and suffer. Big Dick talks about American and Israeli military superiority aside, when the global market is suddenly closed off to your countries, the economic damage inflicted will be staggering. Especially when America is China's economic bitch (thanks to Wal-Mart and the last decade's administrations).

Put those two possible scenarios together, and it leaves Israel wiped off the face of the Earth and America reduced to a third world nation itself if not a Mad Max anarchy.

Simply put, it would be a murder-suicide spree that blows away Jonestown and Waco exponentially.

...and the UN is not biased, never wrong and a supreme champion of human rights.

:rolleyes:^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Well i'd give my vote to the UN as a world governing body over giving it to the US any day.

Well i'd give my vote to the UN as a world governing body over giving it to the US any day.

Never give your vote to anything that begins with the letter U.

The UN is ineffective because we don't back it. if we helped it out, it would be obviously worth helping.

Oh, and are you accusing the UN of being biased on behalf of the Palestinians?

You really are from Texas, huh.
The UN is ineffective because they're the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet. They're ineffective because they put a string of the world's worst human rights abusers as head of the Human Rights Council. They're ineffective because they're corrupt (Oil For Food, rape scandals, etc etc etc).

Of course they're biased on behalf of the Palestinians. All you have to do is look at their decisions regarding the conflict. They're overwhelmingly biased towards the Palestinians.

Yes, I am. What the HELL does that have to do with it? Are you some kind of anti-Texan bigot?

Well i'd give my vote to the UN as a world governing body over giving it to the US any day.
I wouldn't give my vote to either as a world governing body.

They're ineffective because they're corrupt (Oil For Food, rape scandals, etc etc etc).

The Oil for Food proposals were brought up before the UN Security Council (with AMERICA as the Permanent Head) and guess what? They let those measures slide.

The Oil for Food proposals were brought up before the UN Security Council (with AMERICA as the Permanent Head) and guess what? They let those measures slide.
Ahhh... so that explains it. The US is to blame for the Oil For Food scandal! We endorsed the bribes and corruption and blackmailed France and Russia into signing backdoor oil contracts.

Thanks so much for clearing that up for me!

I wouldn't give my vote to either as a world governing body.
Well what do YOU propose then?! Nothing! Just have any state that wants to attack another go ahead and do so?!

Have any one commit genocide like this topic was originally about, without ANY justice whatsoever?!

I'd LOVE to hear this one.

Ahhh... so that explains it. The US is to blame for the Oil For Food scandal! We endorsed the bribes and corruption and blackmailed France and Russia into signing backdoor oil contracts.

Thanks so much for clearing that up for me!

The US really is the most amazing nation in history, isn't it. We control everything that happens in the world and so of course are ultimately to blame for everything. Someday we may even replace the Jews as the top dogs in the conspiracy to rule the world field. ;)

Well what do YOU propose then?! Nothing! Just have any state that wants to attack another go ahead and do so?!

Have any one commit genocide like this topic was originally about, without ANY justice whatsoever?!

I'd LOVE to hear this one.
I don't see that there's any difference. The UN doesn't DO anything. They sit back and make resolution after resolution after resolution with really strong language (yeah...that sure stopped Saddam from invading Kuwait or using WMDs on his own citizens...not to mention the current genocides going on in Africa...they're really effective there).

The US really is the most amazing nation in history, isn't it. We control everything that happens in the world and so of course are ultimately to blame for everything. Someday we may even replace the Jews as the top dogs in the conspiracy to rule the world field. ;)
No no no. The Jews rule the world, but the US is to blame for every bad thing that happens everywhere on the planet. We're soooooooooooooo evil, don'tchaknow?

;)

I don't see that there's any difference. The UN doesn't DO anything. They sit back and make resolution after resolution after resolution with really strong language (yeah...that sure stopped Saddam from invading Kuwait or using WMDs on his own citizens...not to mention the current genocides going on in Africa...they're really effective there).

And....???

Any response to what you'd have instead then? Just nothing? Great, well then thats settled. China will be the next superpower and the US will be shi**ing its pants because no one will do a damn thing to help them, as its not in their self interest.

They did. Arabs suck at combat, even against lightly armed civilians with crude equipment. Other than the Arab victories in the October 1973 war, every Arab army fielded in modern times has fared far worse than the French.

what about the Arab armies (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia) that were part of the coalition in the 1991 gulf war?

And....???

Any response to what you'd have instead then? Just nothing? Great, well then thats settled. China will be the next superpower and the US will be shi**ing its pants because no one will do a damn thing to help them, as its not in their self interest.
No. I've proposed over and over that the US get out of the UN and send them packing to Belgium. We'd then start a loose "Coalition of the Willing" like we did during the tsunami cleanup...something along the lines of NATO. All member countries would have to be democracies with TRULY elected governments. No sham elections like so many dictatorships/theocracies have. Coalition members protect and help each other and the rest can rot. Countries outside the Coalition can ask for help, but they must meet membership requirements if they are to even get help, economic, military or otherwise.

Well what do YOU propose then?! Nothing! Just have any state that wants to attack another go ahead and do so?!

Have any one commit genocide like this topic was originally about, without ANY justice whatsoever?!

I'd LOVE to hear this one.
well uh ... yes... as it always has been and im pretty sure always will be,

even with one world government israel could pounce on the palestinians and kill them all before the UN could call a meeting on the subject. that they dont do so has nothing to do with outside authority and everything to do with their own morals and self interest.

the notion of killing all the men and boy, selling the women and girls into slavery, and salting the earth so that nothing will ever grow there again has kinda gone out of favor. some people even consider it immoral.

I never said anything about salting the earth. Besides, some things never go out of style. Like leather.

Do you actually have any inclination or clue WHATSOEVER as to the size of Iran???

Do us a favour, go look at a map- compare it to Iraq. The US can't even control THAT without foreign assistance and a few dozen thousand local hired milita. The US army is tiny compared to Iran and especially the rest of the Middle East combined.

You can have all the fancy high tech ordinance like- you still need troops on the ground to hold the territory. Air power doesn't win wars alone.


You arent understanding. This wouldn't be conventional war, or conventional occupation. This would be shooting anything that moves, and isnt in a US military uniform. Repeat until the majority of the population is dead. The rest will either abandon the nation, hide and fight, or just defect to the US side. Those that fight, will be obvious and much easier to kill.

Quantity does not matter. The airforce will destroy all the air and armour of the nations. The us armour and infantry will wipe up, killing everything in sight. There is little threat, if everything is dead.

No. I've proposed over and over that the US get out of the UN and send them packing to Belgium. We'd then start a loose "Coalition of the Willing" like we did during the tsunami cleanup...something along the lines of NATO. All member countries would have to be democracies with TRULY elected governments. No sham elections like so many dictatorships/theocracies have. Coalition members protect and help each other and the rest can rot. Countries outside the Coalition can ask for help, but they must meet membership requirements if they are to even get help, economic, military or otherwise.

Oh yes, the famous 'Coalition of the Willing', i'm sure Micronesia and Tajikistan contributed fantastically to the war effort.

Spain withdrew, Poland withdrew, Italy has been on the verge on withdrawing for some months now, if it wasn't for Silvio.

Truely elected govts? YOU FUNDED AUTHORITARIAN AND DICTATORIAL REGIMES FOR DECADES YOU MUPPET! :p

a) yeah, the US military is obviously capable of doing SUCH a good job of protecting strategic resources.

You cant compare current ability with post-genocidal capability.

b) iran would've wiped the floor with iraq if reagan hadn't been funding saddam's army and giving him chemical weapons. note that around the height of that era, iraq had the third most powerful army in the world.

4th, but it doesnt matter. By 1991, it took an air campaign, plus a three day ground campaign, to obliterate its army. And the gap is only getting wider.

c) we're having a tough enough time finding 140,000 soldiers to occupy a single country. the days in which armies of millions just sweep through countries at every single point on their border is long over. and while bullets are cheap, lives, bombs, munitions (tank, etc), tanks, aircraft and artillary are not.

You need 140,000 soldiers because there are people to occupy, and people shooting at our people. If you kill everyone, there is no one to occupy, and so you only need token forces in any given area to protect it from outsiders trying to grab it. Deaths for the US would be few, as most killing would be done from aircraft, tanks, and artillery. Bombs, munitions, and artillery are cheap. We already have plenty tanks and aircraft.

i'd say we're both giving ourselves a little leeway in our arguments, but it comes down to this: we could never pull off the genocide. if we did succeed in causing one, we ourselves would die out in the aftermath.

Hardly. You have no real evidence of that. Killing others in mass numbers doesn't kill you. It takes other conditions for that to occur.

Replies in bold.

It would be a propaganda coup and a rallying cry for Jihaidists on a scale that not even Osama Bin Ladin would have imagined possible. All the terrorist cells and networks who have been busy going about their own agendas would come together in an unprecedented cartel and possibly coordinate global attacks on those they hold responsible, primarily Israel and the United States.

Even the few Mid-East countries who supported or at least tolerated Israel won't be able to let this one slide. Al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups may or may not gain unprecedented appearance of legitimacy following the genocide.

Good point. In the age of the attention economy, it's no longer very easy to hide a large-scale genocide (such as Stalin's genocides and the mass murder of Armenians). But, that's been fairly successful in Sudan.

But, do these groups and countries have that much power and the ability to affect the genocidal agenda? On military grounds, it's a bit difficult to believe, as the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons is Pakistan. In terrorism, the power is even smaller. The execution of the 9/11 attacks depends mainly on the element of surprise, and that isn't there anymore. Closing borders to Muslim states would help a bit. In this, the governments of the world should actually collaborate with the genocidal maniacs.

Oil is one thing, but if the oil economy is replaced by some other structure in, say, 200 years, will it be possible then? (This is really hypothetical, but I'm asking all this from an "alternative history" point of view.)

And, if the United States were to somehow allow such a genocide to happen, it and Israel together would be alienated by the rest of the world and suffer. Big Dick talks about American and Israeli military superiority aside, when the global market is suddenly closed off to your countries, the economic damage inflicted will be staggering. Especially when America is China's economic bitch (thanks to Wal-Mart and the last decade's administrations).
Interesting point of view. But, isn't USA fairly self-sufficient, unless we count oil?

I wonder if China cares - they haven't cared of anything as yet, so it's hard to say. Do Europeans, barring a small group of politicians and ideologues, really care? A blind eye has been turned on the genocidal actions of many large countries because of the economic benefits of ignorance. I'm that cynical that I'd assume the governments would institute an embargo on Israel and then issue some statement against USA for show, and that'd be that. No one cares about genocide, and there's history to prove that statement.


Put those two possible scenarios together, and it leaves Israel wiped off the face of the Earth and America reduced to a third world nation itself if not a Mad Max anarchy.
USA as a Mad Max anarchy, what a mental image.

I'm Jewish, and I must say, most of you are biased assholes. Both the ones on Israel's side, but mostly the ones on Palestine’s side.

Anyone that says that the Jews should be expelled from Israel, or murdered, or whatever against Jews is obviously biased.

But then again, most Jews blindly believe it's Israel’s right to own the whole land (they're wrong too), but it's understandable that they (in general) want a state of their own and not have a single state shared with Arabs or a partitioned land, which would obviously endanger Israel’s security.

But they're wrong.

Jews are not one people. I am very Jewish and proud but I’m definitely not proud of Israel. Most Jews are not of Semitic heritage, for god's sake. I'm not a Semite. There's no point for Israel to exist for a "people" that is comprised of different nations (Ashkenazis, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Yemenites, Romaniotes, Ethiopians, Bene Israel, the Kaiffeng jews, etc.). While at the same time, discriminating the "latest" natives (“Palestinians”, which aren’t natives really, since those lands were swamps). If someone is native to that land, perhaps the Sephardim and/or Mizrahim, but then again, most of them are really native to the Arab lands. They wouldn't have been discriminated or expelled if Israel didn't exist.

The only Jews that were prosecuted (mainly) were the Ashkenazim. Of course, Sephardim too, but at a lesser scale and a longer time ago. Nobody cares if Hitler wanted them all as one. If Hitler thought the Jews were one people, that makes it true? That’s false. Zionism is an aberration of Adolph Herzel… I mean, Benjamin. Hebrew is too. Hebrew was not the language of any Jewish nation (neither of the many I mentioned), just as Latin isn’t the language of southern Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Latin-Americans, the Portuguese, the Italian, the Rumanians, etc. Neither is Greek the language of Russian or Bulgarian or whatever orthodox Christian people.

Mizrahim spoke Arabic, Ashkenazim Yiddish, Sephardim ladino, etc. They’re not a nation. They don’t share genes, nor history, nor language. Just “religion” (but just barely, since they’re as different as protestants from Catholics). Yes Hebrew is written in the Torah, but who cares? You got to be an idiot to consider the bible for a real argument.

If Ashkenazim (like me), the most prosecuted people through modern history, wanted a land, why didn’t Germany gave them the land they stole from everyone? After all, Germans slaughtered the Ashkenazim, not the Palestinians. And they are much more related to Germany (Yiddish) and Poland than to a Semite’s Land. And the rest of the (Semite or not) Jews would have lived better (not peacefully) in their respective lands, since extremism in Arab lands wouldn’t be as high due to the lack of presence of Zionism in their land. And democracy in those lands would have advanced faster, and there wouldn’t have been any “need” to invade any Arabic land for oil, since the Jewish agenda in the states probably wouldn’t have cared anymore about the Arabic territories.

Besides, if Israel is one of the most advanced countries (technologically speaking), Imagine if it didn’t have to fight anymore? (Assuming it existed in actual German territories for Ashkenazim and that they wouldn’t need to fight anymore, which could be false). Better yet, in a cold environment (cold environments encourage intellectual activity). Even better yet, a country with an average I.Q. of 115 (because it’s inhabited mainly by Ashkenazi Jews, the people with highest I.Q. on earth, proven, read “The Jewish mystique”, “The Bell curve”, and there are several other texts that say so, and this is consistent with the fact that a fifth of Nobel prices and many other prices have been won by these guys), in that environment, with no need to fight? Humanity would have (had) a lot of benefits from this fictional (but not necessarily impossible) country. And that’s not even counting that there would be much lesser turmoil in the middle east. Palestine would have been born, and perhaps Kurdistan too.

I think something should be done to accomplish this. What do you think? Am I right or what? Message me, reply to me, heck, e-mail me to i_baum@hotmail.com

your condoning genocide? well at least its a little heard opinion...

I cannot believe how long this discussion has gone on.

First, to reply to the original poster [Perkeleenmaa]. I don't know if you asked this question in earnest or not, but I will answer it in terms simple enough for you to understand, hopefully.

You ask why not kill all the Palestinians. Regardless of how "effective" it would be or the capacity of the Israeli military to do it, and even regardless of the character of any person in the whole of the Israeli government, such an action would be totally indefensible. Not just indefensible, but unmentionable today. I would say simply "you are talking about genocide," normally, and feel that that would be enough, but that you would even bring up the question speaks to your ignorance. It is the most dispicable crime imaginable. Nobody, regardless of whether they would like to kill all the members of another ethnic group, could defend such an action to anyone (including themselves, if they have any semblances of anything anyone in at all mainstream societies considers "moral). And if they were to do it anyway, they would be totally ostracised by basically everyone.

It is murder. A single murder is intolerable. A multiple murder is beyond unacceptable. Genocide is the worst thing any person on this planet has the power to do. I think the support for this opinion in past and present examples is clear enough that it need not be enumerated.

I don't think that anyone who isn't crazy doesn't consider genocide unacceptable. Put another way, anyone who thinks murder on a mass scale is permissible can safely be considered crazy. Or, as is perhaps your case, terribly, tragically naive.

Let me make it perfectly clear: Palestinians are PEOPLE. End of story.

This thread has digressed under the direction of those who are largely aware of half-truths and propaganda, and I will not bother to address most of this as it has over and over proven to be a worthless discussion. It's like trying to have a scientific debate with members of the Flat Earth Society. So, forget that.

The only worthwhile turn this discussion has taken that I've noticed was introduced by Haywoods. I think the only mistake he made was in forgetting to clarify his use of genocide. In the sense that most people understand the word, it means the systematic killing of an ethnic group - this is the sense in which Perkeleenmaa meant it. Haywoods is talking about what is more generally known as ethnic cleansing. And, he is certainly right that it is taking place. Again, the evidence is ubiquitous and hardly needs to be enumerated. Briefly, though, it should be obvious that when about 4.7 million of a population of about 8.8 million do not live in their place of origin (I am included in these estimates), there is some evidence of some manner of ethnic cleansing. While the approx 1.1 million Palestinians who do live in what is now Israel are afforded many (but not all) of the benefits of their Israeli "citizenship," even the 3.3 million who live on Palestinian territory are subject to the pressures of ethnic cleansing - as Heywood mentioned, deprivation of food, water, and livelihood, and unpredictable violence, humiliation, and trampling on a variety of other essential rights. This IS ethnic cleansing.

As for those who will point to the mistakes of the past - and mistakes have been made on both sides - and say "Screw them, they had their chance," or "see, this is how they operate," I will remind you that you are forgetting that you are talking about a nation of almost 8.8 million people who each have RIGHTS. "They" didn't do anything, as a collective. Many of "Them" have been born since such decisions have been made. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to live in justice and security with my rightful property, human dignity, and right to earn my livelihood because I, personally, as part of "Them" have "had my chance?" Again, you are talking about PEOPLE with RIGHTS. Again, end of story.


Finally - I have never posted on the NS forums since they changed over. I made the first exception ever today because not only was I totally taken aback by the original post, but utterly frustrated by the lack of widespread condemnation of the very idea by this forum. With some exceptions, most of you who have "contributed" to this thread have reason to be ashamed.

As a fellow Jew, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one.

I'm Jewish, and I must say, most of you are biased assholes. Both the ones on Israel's side, but mostly the ones on Palestine’s side.

Anyone that says that the Jews should be expelled from Israel, or murdered, or whatever against Jews is obviously biased and/or genocidal.

Quite right. People on both sides generally have ideological blinders they can't seem to see through.

My additions in bold.

But then again, most Jews blindly believe it's Israel’s right to own the whole land (they're wrong too), but it's understandable that they (in general) want a state of their own and not have a single state shared with Arabs or a partitioned land, which would obviously endanger Israel’s security.

But they're wrong.
If the whole land includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip, then you're right. That land should be used to create a Palestinian state.

However, Israel needs the Golan Heights for security reasons. If Israel were to give up the heights, it would become at its shortest point 10 miles in length. The division could be easily exploited by Syria, one of the most dangerous regimes in the Middle East, by cutting Israel in half, thus splitting its military and preventing it from effectively organizing a resistance. Even if this doesn't happen, Israeli civilian popultions were commonly shelled from the Heights with no means of defense due to the height advantage the terrorists had. Not a good state of affairs.

Jerusalem as well should be part of Israel. Israel is historically much more willing to allow all people access to their holy sites, while Jordan has categorically forbidden Jews from viewing the Western Wall when Jerusalem was under its control.

Jews are not one people. I am very Jewish and proud but I’m definitely not proud of Israel. Most Jews are not of Semitic heritage, for god's sake. I'm not a Semite. There's no point for Israel to exist for a "people" that is comprised of different nations (Ashkenazis, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Yemenites, Romaniotes, Ethiopians, Bene Israel, the Kaiffeng jews, etc.). While at the same time, discriminating the "latest" natives (“Palestinians”, which aren’t natives really, since those lands were swamps). If someone is native to that land, perhaps the Sephardim and/or Mizrahim, but then again, most of them are really native to the Arab lands. They wouldn't have been discriminated or expelled if Israel didn't exist.
The beginning is mostly true. The end, however, is historically innacurate. All Jews developed from a nucleus in what is now Israel. After Babylon conquered the ancient land of Israel, it sent Jews all around its empire in order to break up resistance forces. The Romans did the same thing, creating the Jewish diaspora which led to all of the various Jewish ethnicities which you discussed. Therefore, all Jews who are not so by conversion descended at some point from Semitic people. Therefore, all Jews were "native" at one point to Israel.

The last sentence is illogical. Modern Israel did not come into existance until after the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Inquisition, etc.

The only Jews that were prosecuted (mainly) were the Ashkenazim. Of course, Sephardim too, but at a lesser scale and a longer time ago. Nobody cares if Hitler wanted them all as one. If Hitler thought the Jews were one people, that makes it true? That’s false. Zionism is an aberration of Adolph Herzel… I mean, Benjamin. Hebrew is too. Hebrew was not the language of any Jewish nation (neither of the many I mentioned), just as Latin isn’t the language of southern Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Latin-Americans, the Portuguese, the Italian, the Rumanians, etc. Neither is Greek the language of Russian or Bulgarian or whatever orthodox Christian people.
Again, factually incorrect. Hitler didn't care if the Jews he got were Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahic, or any of the other ethnicities. All that mattered to him were that they were Jewish. True, the majority were Ashkenazim, but the ones taken from Italy were Sephardic. And Jews of all ethnicities around the world have been persecuted first by the Babylonians and the Romans, but later by Christian and Muslim missionaries in all nations. Therefore, members of the Jewish religion need a place to stay where they can be free of persecution.

You used the word "aberration" wrong. I think you meant "abomination."

The Holocaust and other persecutions mentioned above all justify Zionism. I don't know why you said Benjamin; I believe you were initially trying to refer to Theodore Hertzl.

Hebrew was a compromise reached by the various Jewish ethnicites as to what language would be spoken in Israel. It belies your "disparate Jews" theory as it was agreed upon to be a universal among Jews of all stripes.

Mizrahim spoke Arabic, Ashkenazim Yiddish, Sephardim ladino, etc. They’re not a nation. They don’t share genes, nor history, nor language. Just “religion” (but just barely, since they’re as different as protestants from Catholics). Yes Hebrew is written in the Torah, but who cares? You got to be an idiot to consider the bible for a real argument.
Aside from your faulty theological arguments (Jews are far more different from any Christian sect than any other Christian sect except for Unitarians), the appeal here to the Bible is not in a religious sense, but rather in a anthropological/historical one. The Bible and its Hebrew language are revered commonly by groups which you defined as "totally different," therefore constructing a sense of connection and group identity which you seem to ignore.

If Ashkenazim (like me), the most prosecuted people through modern history, wanted a land, why didn’t Germany gave them the land they stole from everyone? After all, Germans slaughtered the Ashkenazim, not the Palestinians. And they are much more related to Germany (Yiddish) and Poland than to a Semite’s Land. And the rest of the (Semite or not) Jews would have lived better (not peacefully) in their respective lands, since extremism in Arab lands wouldn’t be as high due to the lack of presence of Zionism in their land. And democracy in those lands would have advanced faster, and there wouldn’t have been any “need” to invade any Arabic land for oil, since the Jewish agenda in the states probably wouldn’t have cared anymore about the Arabic territories.
Punishing Germany for their leaders' crimes is what allowed WWII to happen in the first place; your solution would only have created another Hitler blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems and calling for Germany's historical possesions back. We saw it happen when France took the Ruhr after WWI.

While Arab extremism may not have been high, you can bet this would have inflamed European anti-Semitism. This new "country" would not have gotten along well with its neighbors (and the native German inhabitants who you would have to disposess), and probably wouldn't have been a nation for long.

The last two lines are utterly ridiculous. This is not the time for this argument, but Iraq was not invaded for oil. Democracy would not have come to the Middle East any sooner, because Arab countries would still have been pawns in the Cold War geostrategic battle which supported dictatorships on both sides for stability. The "Jewish agenda in the states" did not cause the Iraq war or any other one in the Middle East. You as a Jew should know this more than anyone else.

Besides, if Israel is one of the most advanced countries (technologically speaking), Imagine if it didn’t have to fight anymore? (Assuming it existed in actual German territories for Ashkenazim and that they wouldn’t need to fight anymore, which could be false). Better yet, in a cold environment (cold environments encourage intellectual activity). Even better yet, a country with an average I.Q. of 115 (because it’s inhabited mainly by Ashkenazi Jews, the people with highest I.Q. on earth, proven, read “The Jewish mystique”, “The Bell curve”, and there are several other texts that say so, and this is consistent with the fact that a fifth of Nobel prices and many other prices have been won by these guys), in that environment, with no need to fight? Humanity would have (had) a lot of benefits from this fictional (but not necessarily impossible) country. And that’s not even counting that there would be much lesser turmoil in the middle east. Palestine would have been born, and perhaps Kurdistan too.
I've already discussed the first line; the rest of the argument is contingent on it so I don't need to address it.

However, much of Israeli technological advancement came from the exigencies of wartime; they needed new technologies to fight with.

The cold weather thing is more or less bullshit.

There's no reason to think Kurdistan would have come if Israel didn't exist. Why would Jews not being there make Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds like each other more? There's no real reason.

I think something should be done to accomplish this. What do you think? Am I right or what? Message me, reply to me, heck, e-mail me to i_baum@hotmail.com
This contradicts one of your first lines - "we shouldn't take the Jews out of Israel." All of your reasons why this German Jewish state would be good are reasons why Israel not existing would have been good. Trying to accomplish this now would only piss off Germany, kick millions of Germans out of their homes, and would not convince many Jews to leave Israel.

Oh, and are you accusing the UN of being biased on behalf of the Palestinians?

How could an organization filled with members ruled by Islamic dictators not be? But as long as the US has its seat on the Security Council they will never get a military resolution against Israel. THAT is the real reason why muslims hate America, isn't it?

Oh yes, the famous 'Coalition of the Willing', i'm sure Micronesia and Tajikistan contributed fantastically to the war effort.

Spain withdrew, Poland withdrew, Italy has been on the verge on withdrawing for some months now, if it wasn't for Silvio.

They did more than your country did or could have done. South France did retreat after 1 bombing but Poland never pulled out of the coalition. Italy has never wavered. What is it with these crazy worldviews in your country? Is something wrong with the water over there? Then again being Ireland, maybe water isn't the liquid at fault...

The Holy Womble, even with all the propaganda of Palestinian sympathizers we know the truth of what's happening there. I even spent of some time in Israel before the destruction of the intifada and I'll never forget it. We stand with you.

Massada will not fall again.

I cannot believe how long this discussion has gone on.

First, to reply to the original poster [Perkeleenmaa]. I don't know if you asked this question in earnest or not, but I will answer it in terms simple enough for you to understand, hopefully.

You ask why not kill all the Palestinians. Regardless of how "effective" it would be or the capacity of the Israeli military to do it, and even regardless of the character of any person in the whole of the Israeli government, such an action would be totally indefensible. Not just indefensible, but unmentionable today. I would say simply "you are talking about genocide," normally, and feel that that would be enough, but that you would even bring up the question speaks to your ignorance. It is the most dispicable crime imaginable. Nobody, regardless of whether they would like to kill all the members of another ethnic group, could defend such an action to anyone (including themselves, if they have any semblances of anything anyone in at all mainstream societies considers "moral). And if they were to do it anyway, they would be totally ostracised by basically everyone.

It is murder. A single murder is intolerable. A multiple murder is beyond unacceptable. Genocide is the worst thing any person on this planet has the power to do. I think the support for this opinion in past and present examples is clear enough that it need not be enumerated.

I don't think that anyone who isn't crazy doesn't consider genocide unacceptable. Put another way, anyone who thinks murder on a mass scale is permissible can safely be considered crazy. Or, as is perhaps your case, terribly, tragically naive.

Let me make it perfectly clear: Palestinians are PEOPLE. End of story.

This thread has digressed under the direction of those who are largely aware of half-truths and propaganda, and I will not bother to address most of this as it has over and over proven to be a worthless discussion. It's like trying to have a scientific debate with members of the Flat Earth Society. So, forget that.

The only worthwhile turn this discussion has taken that I've noticed was introduced by Haywoods. I think the only mistake he made was in forgetting to clarify his use of genocide. In the sense that most people understand the word, it means the systematic killing of an ethnic group - this is the sense in which Perkeleenmaa meant it. Haywoods is talking about what is more generally known as ethnic cleansing. And, he is certainly right that it is taking place. Again, the evidence is ubiquitous and hardly needs to be enumerated. Briefly, though, it should be obvious that when about 4.7 million of a population of about 8.8 million do not live in their place of origin (I am included in these estimates), there is some evidence of some manner of ethnic cleansing. While the approx 1.1 million Palestinians who do live in what is now Israel are afforded many (but not all) of the benefits of their Israeli "citizenship," even the 3.3 million who live on Palestinian territory are subject to the pressures of ethnic cleansing - as Heywood mentioned, deprivation of food, water, and livelihood, and unpredictable violence, humiliation, and trampling on a variety of other essential rights. This IS ethnic cleansing.

As for those who will point to the mistakes of the past - and mistakes have been made on both sides - and say "Screw them, they had their chance," or "see, this is how they operate," I will remind you that you are forgetting that you are talking about a nation of almost 8.8 million people who each have RIGHTS. "They" didn't do anything, as a collective. Many of "Them" have been born since such decisions have been made. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to live in justice and security with my rightful property, human dignity, and right to earn my livelihood because I, personally, as part of "Them" have "had my chance?" Again, you are talking about PEOPLE with RIGHTS. Again, end of story.


Finally - I have never posted on the NS forums since they changed over. I made the first exception ever today because not only was I totally taken aback by the original post, but utterly frustrated by the lack of widespread condemnation of the very idea by this forum. With some exceptions, most of you who have "contributed" to this thread have reason to be ashamed.

You speak as if everything you are saying is the truth. In reality, you are just giving opinions. You think killing is wrong(I dont like saying murder, because not all killing is murder). You think only crazy people support genocide. Maybe everyone else is crazy, and we are sane?

They dont want to attack because getting hit by rocks hurt sometimes!

Oh yes, the famous 'Coalition of the Willing', i'm sure Micronesia and Tajikistan contributed fantastically to the war effort.

Spain withdrew, Poland withdrew, Italy has been on the verge on withdrawing for some months now, if it wasn't for Silvio.

Truely elected govts? YOU FUNDED AUTHORITARIAN AND DICTATORIAL REGIMES FOR DECADES YOU MUPPET! :p
You asked for MY idea for a solution, not the US government's idea. *I* haven't funded anything of the sort.

Will you please keep your arguments on track?

You speak as if everything you are saying is the truth. In reality, you are just giving opinions. You think killing is wrong(I dont like saying murder, because not all killing is murder). You think only crazy people support genocide. Maybe everyone else is crazy, and we are sane?

I only represented them as opinions. If you think genocide is acceptable, I think you are crazy. I also feel comfortable asserting that any reasonable person agrees that genocide is not acceptable.

Let me make it perfectly clear: Palestinians are PEOPLE. End of story.

This thread has digressed under the direction of those who are largely aware of half-truths and propaganda, and I will not bother to address most of this as it has over and over proven to be a worthless discussion. It's like trying to have a scientific debate with members of the Flat Earth Society. So, forget that.

The only worthwhile turn this discussion has taken that I've noticed was introduced by Haywoods. I think the only mistake he made was in forgetting to clarify his use of genocide. In the sense that most people understand the word, it means the systematic killing of an ethnic group - this is the sense in which Perkeleenmaa meant it. Haywoods is talking about what is more generally known as ethnic cleansing. And, he is certainly right that it is taking place. Again, the evidence is ubiquitous and hardly needs to be enumerated. Briefly, though, it should be obvious that when about 4.7 million of a population of about 8.8 million do not live in their place of origin (I am included in these estimates), there is some evidence of some manner of ethnic cleansing. While the approx 1.1 million Palestinians who do live in what is now Israel are afforded many (but not all) of the benefits of their Israeli "citizenship," even the 3.3 million who live on Palestinian territory are subject to the pressures of ethnic cleansing - as Heywood mentioned, deprivation of food, water, and livelihood, and unpredictable violence, humiliation, and trampling on a variety of other essential rights. This IS ethnic cleansing.

As for those who will point to the mistakes of the past - and mistakes have been made on both sides - and say "Screw them, they had their chance," or "see, this is how they operate," I will remind you that you are forgetting that you are talking about a nation of almost 8.8 million people who each have RIGHTS. "They" didn't do anything, as a collective. Many of "Them" have been born since such decisions have been made. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to live in justice and security with my rightful property, human dignity, and right to earn my livelihood because I, personally, as part of "Them" have "had my chance?" Again, you are talking about PEOPLE with RIGHTS. Again, end of story.


Finally - I have never posted on the NS forums since they changed over. I made the first exception ever today because not only was I totally taken aback by the original post, but utterly frustrated by the lack of widespread condemnation of the very idea by this forum. With some exceptions, most of you who have "contributed" to this thread have reason to be ashamed.
I agree with what you've said. The initial post was horrific. As a supporter of Israel, I find the statements of the author perhaps one of the most repugnant things I've ever read.

I do have to quibble with your accusation of ethnic cleansing by Israel. The last declared case of ethnic cleansing (not including Sudan, for various reasons I won't get into here, such as it not being declared) was Bosnia/Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians were found lined up and shot into mass graves. This is not happening in Israel. The International Red Cross cleared Israel of any such crimes.

The place of origin argument is ridiculous. If you're going with that argument, we should kick all white, black, and asian Americans out of the United States and give all the land to mestizos and American Indians.

The deprevation and violence arguments could all be applied equally to the Israeli population at various times during its history. Arab nations prevented Israelis from getting food and water. The reason Palestinians don't get as much now is because there's a functional state of war between the Israeli army and undefined terrorist organization which refuse to follow the Geneva Convention (unlike Israel) won't show themselves as an army, and hide among the populace, thus making Israel either allow their own civilians to die for no crime other than living or try to eliminate militants with as little collateral damage as possible. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, make any and all collateral damage inevitable given their tactics.

Ethnic cleansing also implies a campaign to kill civilians. Statistical breakdowns of the conflict indicate that the vast majority of Palestinian casualties are combat-aged males (as is normal in a war) whereas the vast majority of Israeli casualties are non-combatant seniors, women, and children, killed in terrorist bombings in civilian establishments. So don't talk to me about "ethnic cleansing" when Arab nations have tried three times to "drive Israel into the sea" (Read: kill all the Jews in Israel and take their land).

If you want to go into personal narratives, what was left of my family (it wasn't much) fled the heels of the Holocaust into Israel and the United States. The new Israeli citizens finally felt like they had someplace to go where they could free of the constant terror that had defined life in Europe. And for a few brief years, they found it - until surrounding Arab nations with populations over 10 times that of Israel decided their lives weren't living. "Freedom fighters" made the same choice for them.

I'm sorry for what you've been through. I truly am. I think the Israeli side has done bad things (see Lebanon and certain aspects of the current presence in the West Bank/Gaza strip), and I do think a two-state solution is the best resolution, but I don't like it when my family and people are called part of an ethnic cleansing. The memories of the Holocaust are not yet gone.

They did more than your country did or could have done. South France did retreat after 1 bombing but Poland never pulled out of the coalition. Italy has never wavered. What is it with these crazy worldviews in your country? Is something wrong with the water over there? Then again being Ireland, maybe water isn't the liquid at fault...

The Holy Womble, even with all the propaganda of Palestinian sympathizers we know the truth of what's happening there. I even spent of some time in Israel before the destruction of the intifada and I'll never forget it. We stand with you.

Massada will not fall again.
*coughs with embarrassment on your behalf*
Well, without descending into a dick swinging contest my friend, you seem to know little about European politics, i don't expect you to, but i wouldn't expect you to post on something you don't know about.

Leaving aside the snide comments about my country- we have always been neutral as it is enshrined in our constitution. We have participated greatly to the UN peacekeepers around the planet, my grandfather served in the Congo and my father served 2 tours in S.Lebanon also during the Israeli invasion in the 80's.

'South France' or Spain as us educated people call it- was against the war from the beginning- their govt paid for their folly be being kicked out of power by the electorate- democracy in action. Italys population in fact does not support the war- and the next govt elections will prove that when Berlusconi gets kicked out also.

And Poland actually HAS withdrawn its 200 or so special forces troops i believe they were. Several months ago infact- EuroNews reported it a fair while back.

Ho ho, Ireland and alcohol, hilarious. Im sure it took a great witted mind like yours to come up with that one all on your own. I hope it didn't hurt your pea sized brain.

You asked for MY idea for a solution, not the US government's idea. *I* haven't funded anything of the sort.

Will you please keep your arguments on track?

Oh my apologies, i meant 'you' collectively not just you yourself! ;)

But surely, such a coalition would need a leader? And does that not turn the world into a very black v white view? With us or against us?

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?

Read the Bible - they've been here before, and it works okay for a while, but then a bigger dog comes along and bites you.

Perhaps the modern Israel has learned the lesson of waging Genocidal wars?

However, Genocides are tricky things - and they can have exactly the opposite of the effect you claim. If you don't get everyone, there is an unhappy possibility that you are creating martyrs and new, more aggresive partisans.

The other thing, of course - is that it could be argued that Israel IS carrying out a Genocide on the Palestinians... just a very slow one.

Last thought: If Israel massed forces, marshalled nuclear reserves etc, and DID launch a full scale strike on Palestine, there is a strong possibility that UN pressure would cause the US to withdraw the hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid and sponsorship that they pipe into Israel.

Obviously, Israel isn't winlling to lose the cash, just to make the Palestinian issue go away.

Nor are they willing to risk the shitstorm that would follow, when the US ceases bailing them out, and the other Middle East nations wipe them from the face of the Earth in retaliation.

'South France' or Spain as us educated people call it- was against the war from the beginning- their govt paid for their folly be being kicked out of power by the electorate- democracy in action. Italys population in fact does not support the war- and the next govt elections will prove that when Berlusconi gets kicked out also.
Don't want to take the thread off topic, but the assertion that the Spanish government fell b/c the war is incorrect. It was leading in the polls by a signficiant margin until the Madrid train bombing, where made very misleading statements about the source of the bombs, initially blaming it on the basques, who were in no way responsible. That's what caused them to lose. [/tangent]

The other thing, of course - is that it could be argued that Israel IS carrying out a Genocide on the Palestinians... just a very slow one.
Easily proven wrong. Palestinian birth rates are higher than Israeli ones.

The Israeli government committing genocide because it believes genocide to be wrong. End of story.

Don't want to take the thread off topic, but the assertion that the Spanish government fell b/c the war is incorrect. It was leading in the polls by a signficiant margin until the Madrid train bombing, where made very misleading statements about the source of the bombs, initially blaming it on the basques, who were in no way responsible. That's what caused them to lose. [/tangent]
Well yeah ok, the war was not SOLEY to blame, but it had an impact over the long term while the bombings were immediate short term reactions- but yeah i see what your saying.

But surely, such a coalition would need a leader?
Why? Have a council leadership. One representative from each country, all with equal power. No automatic vetos. No special councils. No extraneous bullshit. Majority of votes rules in decisions. Any country can bow out of any action they do not agree with. That's why it would be a Coalition of the Willing. Participation is voluntary.

Don't want to take the thread off topic, but the assertion that the Spanish government fell b/c the war is incorrect. It was leading in the polls by a signficiant margin until the Madrid train bombing, where made very misleading statements about the source of the bombs, initially blaming it on the basques, who were in no way responsible. That's what caused them to lose. [/tangent]
Evidence has come out in the past few days that the bombings were staged in order to cause a public coup and force the conservative government out of power...which is exactly what happened.

Kind of like Rathergate, but much more destructive and effective.

Evidence has come out in the past few days that the bombings were staged in order to cause a public coup and force the conservative government out of power...which is exactly what happened.

Kind of like Rathergate, but much more destructive and effective.

Well, they were designed to prove a point. But that's irrelevent to what the initial question was - something about the unpopularity of the war itself in Spain and this as a predictor of the Italian elections. My comment was designed solely to show that barring a bombing, the war hasn't forced conservative governments out of power.

I only represented them as opinions. If you think genocide is acceptable, I think you are crazy. I also feel comfortable asserting that any reasonable person agrees that genocide is not acceptable.

If you feel comfortable using logical fallicies, go ahead.

Ho ho, Ireland and alcohol, hilarious. Im sure it took a great witted mind like yours to come up with that one all on your own. I hope it didn't hurt your pea sized brain.

Typical, you didn't even get it. Please don't lump me in with whatever boorish conservatives you've battled in the past. Did you hear me say alcohol or make insinuations of drunkenness? No, because that's not what I meant. It's would be too easy and too obvious to refer to Ireland's history as it relates to adult beverage consumption.

I was referring of course to Kool-Aid. A very common reference in American political discourse is "drinking the kool-aid". It is a play on the Jim Jones and his Guyana compound incident. His followers willing drank the kool aid that had been poisoned because their leader instructed them too. So to "drink the kool aid" means to accept and believe what your idols say even if you know it to be false and even harmful. Ireland is a country full of liberals and a favored vacation destination of American and Canadian liberals.

Therefore many of your people would be liberals and inclined to "drink the leftist kool aid". I WAS INSINUATING THAT YOU'RE A BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED SHEEP. Does that clear up our little misunderstanding?

Besides I'm just retaliating in kind for attacks against my country, friend.

Typical, you didn't even get it. Please don't lump me in with whatever boorish conservatives you've battled in the past. Did you hear me say alcohol or make insinuations of drunkenness? No, because that's not what I meant. It's would be too easy and too obvious to refer to Ireland's history as it relates to adult beverage consumption.

I was referring of course to Kool-Aid. A very common reference in American political discourse is "drinking the kool-aid". It is a play on the Jim Jones and his Guyana compound incident. His followers willing drank the kool aid that had been poisoned because their leader instructed them too. So to "drink the kool aid" means to accept and believe what your idols say even if you know it to be false and even harmful. Ireland is a country full of liberals and a favored vacation destination of American and Canadian liberals.

Therefore many of your people would be liberals and inclined to "drink the leftist kool aid". I WAS INSINUATING THAT YOU'RE A BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED SHEEP. Does that clear up our little misunderstanding?

Besides I'm just retaliating in kind for attacks against my country, friend.

No offense, but that could not be discerned from what you said. His/Her extrapolation was the one I think everyone else who read this thread made. Unless you're being sarcastic here, you need to express this idea much better.

Why? Have a council leadership. One representative from each country, all with equal power. No automatic vetos. No special councils. No extraneous bullshit. Majority of votes rules in decisions. Any country can bow out of any action they do not agree with. That's why it would be a Coalition of the Willing. Participation is voluntary.

How exactly is this different than the UN? Really, the UN is just a coalition of those willing to follow its rules. Anyone can bow out, though they will be called a rogue state. The only difference is the security council, and possibly a bigger military backing.

Disclaimer: I'm not on either side, and couldn't care less how it turns out.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's one thing that I don't understand. Why doesn't the Israeli government start a full-scale genocide campaign against the Palestinians?

The rarely-mentioned characteristic of genocide is that it's terribly effective. For example, the Russification of Eastern Finnish (Ingrian) territories. Stalin ordered a large-scale genocide and forced displacement of the Finnish-speaking populations in Ingria and the newly-conquered Karelia. Today, the Finnish city of Viipuri has been Russified in its entirety, the Ingrian Finnish language is headed for extinction, and most of Finns don't support reannexing Karelia to Finland. That is, I must admit that Stalin's policy of mass murder succeeded its in meeting its goal, even if I'm part Ingrian myself. A similar example is the genocide of Native Americans, or Armenians in Turkey. The famous genocide is that which failed, or the Holocaust.

So, as Israel can do this, why don't they?
Send all the Palestinians to Darfur. Yeah! That's the ticket! :D

No offense, but that could not be discerned from what you said. His/Her extrapolation was the one I think everyone else who read this thread made. Unless you're being sarcastic here, you need to express this idea much better.

No, I really meant kool aid. *sigh* I was afraid that was going to be the immediate reaction but I was really hoping I wouldn't need to spell everything out. I guess I'm too used to battling American libs who'd get such a reference.

I agree with what you've said. The initial post was horrific. As a supporter of Israel, I find the statements of the author perhaps one of the most repugnant things I've ever read.

I do have to quibble with your accusation of ethnic cleansing by Israel. The last declared case of ethnic cleansing (not including Sudan, for various reasons I won't get into here, such as it not being declared) was Bosnia/Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians were found lined up and shot into mass graves. This is not happening in Israel. The International Red Cross cleared Israel of any such crimes.

The place of origin argument is ridiculous. If you're going with that argument, we should kick all white, black, and asian Americans out of the United States and give all the land to mestizos and American Indians.

The deprevation and violence arguments could all be applied equally to the Israeli population at various times during its history. Arab nations prevented Israelis from getting food and water. The reason Palestinians don't get as much now is because there's a functional state of war between the Israeli army and undefined terrorist organization which refuse to follow the Geneva Convention (unlike Israel) won't show themselves as an army, and hide among the populace, thus making Israel either allow their own civilians to die for no crime other than living or try to eliminate militants with as little collateral damage as possible. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, make any and all collateral damage inevitable given their tactics.

Ethnic cleansing also implies a campaign to kill civilians. Statistical breakdowns of the conflict indicate that the vast majority of Palestinian casualties are combat-aged males (as is normal in a war) whereas the vast majority of Israeli casualties are non-combatant seniors, women, and children, killed in terrorist bombings in civilian establishments. So don't talk to me about "ethnic cleansing" when Arab nations have tried three times to "drive Israel into the sea" (Read: kill all the Jews in Israel and take their land).

If you want to go into personal narratives, what was left of my family (it wasn't much) fled the heels of the Holocaust into Israel and the United States. The new Israeli citizens finally felt like they had someplace to go where they could free of the constant terror that had defined life in Europe. And for a few brief years, they found it - until surrounding Arab nations with populations over 10 times that of Israel decided their lives weren't living. "Freedom fighters" made the same choice for them.

I'm sorry for what you've been through. I truly am. I think the Israeli side has done bad things (see Lebanon and certain aspects of the current presence in the West Bank/Gaza strip), and I do think a two-state solution is the best resolution, but I don't like it when my family and people are called part of an ethnic cleansing. The memories of the Holocaust are not yet gone.


Thank you for your level-headed response.

I think there is, in general, too much accusation in too-broad terms. That is, when I accuse Israel as above, I do not mean to accuse every individual Israeli. To the credit of certain Israelis, most of the organisations that document the abuses of the Israeli government (such as B'Tselem) are themselves Israeli, and I know that there are a large number of reasonable people on the other side of that green line. Please don't take it as a personal accussation; I didn't intend this.

That said, there are certain actions that the Israeli government has taken as a whole that I certainly do feel comfortable asserting constitute policies of ethnic cleansing. I assert that the forced removal of people from the land on which they currently lived by an invading force in order to make room for people of a different ethnicity is racist and constitutes ethnic cleansing. Nobody denies that these things happened in 48, yet many are reluctant to call the spade a spade. I also am willing to assert that many of the Israeli government's present-day policies constitute ethnic cleansing, or an attempt at it, but for the sake of brevity we can discuss this elsewhere if you like. One more time, please don't confuse the broader term "ethnic cleansing" with "genocide," which constitutes a possible method of ethnic cleansing. I do not accuse the Israeli state of genocide; it seems to be only the original poster who was foolish, naive, or just plain immoral enough to suggest this.

I did not mean to make a nebulous "place of origin" argument. Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, certainly, we can confuse ourselves with the convolutions of history and find that it is hard to determine who "belongs" where - as in the examples you give of the Americas. However, there were and are people who were, themselves expelled by the ethnic cleansing involved in the historically recent creation of Israel. There continue to be people who are affected by racist policies and even racist laws of the state of Israel. Millions have been born in refugee camps - their parents and grandparents still have the keys to the houses they were expelled from on a racial basis. Millions have been born into poverty in exile as a direct result of the initial and subsequent racist actions. It is not an uncertain question of distant ancestry, as in the case of many North and South Americans, but an immediate and personal disparity that affects many people's daily lives.

As for myself - I was born in exile, luckily in a relatively safe country where I don't have to worry for my own self. The situation is different for different members of my family, especially my father, to whom I owe my Palestinian heritage. Thanks for your concern though. And of course, my sympathy to you and those in your family who were victims of the genocide perpetrated against Jews. I certainly don't downplay the problems that many Jews have had to face in the past, and I feel tremendous sympathy and indignation for those who have been wronged!

No offense, but that could not be discerned from what you said. His/Her extrapolation was the one I think everyone else who read this thread made. Unless you're being sarcastic here, you need to express this idea much better.

thanks.

@Northern Fox, 'Ireland is a country full of liberals....'

no... not exactly. Thers a fairly even mix of both conservative and liberaly minded people in the electorate. In comparison to the US political spectrum then yes, it could be seen on a 'liberal' label. no more so than most of continental europe.
and i didn't 'attack' the US- nor i believe did any other irish person on here, so i dunno what that was about sorry mate. :confused:

Apologies for meandering off topic.

Actually, evidence that Italy IS withdrawing its troops and is quite the opposite of 'wavering' http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/16/italy.iraq/ and public opinion WAS against sending them in the first place.

I feel absolutely retarded; I confused Arafat with Sharon.
And its not the only thing you got confused :p In fact, all your posts here so far were nothing but one uninterrupted flow of confusions.

Ethnic cleansing also implies a campaign to kill civilians. Statistical breakdowns of the conflict indicate that the vast majority of Palestinian casualties are combat-aged males (as is normal in a war) whereas the vast majority of Israeli casualties are non-combatant seniors, women, and children, killed in terrorist bombings in civilian establishments. So don't talk to me about "ethnic cleansing" when Arab nations have tried three times to "drive Israel into the sea" (Read: kill all the Jews in Israel and take their land).

Do you have any source? The only statistic i can find are total death for the period between sept 2000 and may 2005:

Israeli Dead: 964 (0,01% of the population)
Palestinian Dead: 3616 (0.09% of the population)

Important notice:
-Israeli death does include Israeli soldier dead in Palestinian land incursion
-Palestinain death does not incluse suicide bombers and high commander victim of assassination

From these stat, even if we cant talk of a real genocide from either side. It look to me that Israel is much more violent in is action...

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/equiv.asp

Ethnic cleansing also implies a campaign to kill civilians. Statistical breakdowns of the conflict indicate that the vast majority of Palestinian casualties are combat-aged males (as is normal in a war) whereas the vast majority of Israeli casualties are non-combatant seniors, women, and children, killed in terrorist bombings in civilian establishments. So don't talk to me about "ethnic cleansing" when Arab nations have tried three times to "drive Israel into the sea" (Read: kill all the Jews in Israel and take their land).


Do you have any source? The only statistic i can find are total death for the period between sept 2000 and may 2005:

Israeli Dead: 964 (0,01% of the population)
Palestinian Dead: 3616 (0.09% of the population)

Important notice:
-Israeli death does include Israeli soldier dead in Palestinian land incursion
-Palestinain death does not incluse suicide bombers and high commander victim of assassination

From these stat, even if we cant talk of a real genocide from either side. It look to me that Israel is much more violent in is action...

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/equiv.asp


By the way, I forgot to address this:

Both of you are engaging in the kind of argument that generalises the mistakes of the other "side" to every individual on the other side - something that I have tried to avoid. For example, I never tried to drive the Jews into the sea; I expect my rights to be respected as an individual. In the same way, quoting the death tolls for each "side" does show a disproportionate number of Palestinian deaths (which, you may point out, are predominantly male of combat age) - this kind of argument does not help anyone, it is an exercise in assigning blame but with no practical consequence. No Palestinian civilian should be punished for the action of another Palestinian simply because they share nationality; likewise no Israeli civilian should be killed by a suicide bomber simply because he shares nationality with someone who has directly engaged in his oppression. I am trying to put things simply and comprehensibly.

Talking about "should" can get abstract sometimes, huh?

@Northern Fox, 'Ireland is a country full of liberals....'from NorthernApallachia perspective...most of the World is at his left.

How exactly is this different than the UN? Really, the UN is just a coalition of those willing to follow its rules. Anyone can bow out, though they will be called a rogue state. The only difference is the security council, and possibly a bigger military backing.
Because the Coalition of the Willing wouldn't be trying to control the internet, tax member countries to pay for corrupt policies, etc. It would exist solely to protect member nations, help member nations in disaster situations and for trade cooperation. Think of it as NATO/limited-membership-WTO with a few more benefits.

Also, like I said, non-democratic nations can rot. Dictatorships, theocracies and oppressive communist regimes need not apply.

Because the Coalition of the Willing wouldn't be trying to control the internet, tax member countries to pay for corrupt policies, etc. It would exist solely to protect member nations, help member nations in disaster situations and for trade cooperation. Think of it as NATO/limited-membership-WTO with a few more benefits.

Also, like I said, non-democratic nations can rot. Dictatorships, theocracies and oppressive communist regimes need not apply.

Im sure thats what proponents of the UN said in the fourties. Its not as though they planned corruption, and most likely, this coalition would quickly become corrupt.

Im sure thats what proponents of the UN said in the fourties. Its not as though they planned corruption, and most likely, this coalition would quickly become corrupt.
That's my point. If you limit the power of the coalition to a few things, you limit the ability for corruption to seep into the system.

Thank you for your level-headed response.

I think there is, in general, too much accusation in too-broad terms. That is, when I accuse Israel as above, I do not mean to accuse every individual Israeli. To the credit of certain Israelis, most of the organisations that document the abuses of the Israeli government (such as B'Tselem) are themselves Israeli, and I know that there are a large number of reasonable people on the other side of that green line. Please don't take it as a personal accussation; I didn't intend this.

That said, there are certain actions that the Israeli government has taken as a whole that I certainly do feel comfortable asserting constitute policies of ethnic cleansing. I assert that the forced removal of people from the land on which they currently lived by an invading force in order to make room for people of a different ethnicity is racist and constitutes ethnic cleansing. Nobody denies that these things happened in 48, yet many are reluctant to call the spade a spade. I also am willing to assert that many of the Israeli government's present-day policies constitute ethnic cleansing, or an attempt at it, but for the sake of brevity we can discuss this elsewhere if you like. One more time, please don't confuse the broader term "ethnic cleansing" with "genocide," which constitutes a possible method of ethnic cleansing. I do not accuse the Israeli state of genocide; it seems to be only the original poster who was foolish, naive, or just plain immoral enough to suggest this.

I did not mean to make a nebulous "place of origin" argument. Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, certainly, we can confuse ourselves with the convolutions of history and find that it is hard to determine who "belongs" where - as in the examples you give of the Americas. However, there were and are people who were, themselves expelled by the ethnic cleansing involved in the historically recent creation of Israel. There continue to be people who are affected by racist policies and even racist laws of the state of Israel. Millions have been born in refugee camps - their parents and grandparents still have the keys to the houses they were expelled from on a racial basis. Millions have been born into poverty in exile as a direct result of the initial and subsequent racist actions. It is not an uncertain question of distant ancestry, as in the case of many North and South Americans, but an immediate and personal disparity that affects many people's daily lives.

As for myself - I was born in exile, luckily in a relatively safe country where I don't have to worry for my own self. The situation is different for different members of my family, especially my father, to whom I owe my Palestinian heritage. Thanks for your concern though. And of course, my sympathy to you and those in your family who were victims of the genocide perpetrated against Jews. I certainly don't downplay the problems that many Jews have had to face in the past, and I feel tremendous sympathy and indignation for those who have been wronged!
Thank you as well for engaging in constructive dialogue rather than name-calling.

As much as I'd like to respond to everything you have to say now, it's three in the morning and I need to go to sleep. If you're interested, I'll start another thread in the future where we can discuss these issues more fully.

Thanks again, and good luck to you and your family!

Do you have any source? The only statistic i can find are total death for the period between sept 2000 and may 2005:

Israeli Dead: 964 (0,01% of the population)
Palestinian Dead: 3616 (0.09% of the population)

Important notice:
-Israeli death does include Israeli soldier dead in Palestinian land incursion
-Palestinain death does not incluse suicide bombers and high commander victim of assassination

From these stat, even if we cant talk of a real genocide from either side. It look to me that Israel is much more violent in is action...

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/equiv.asp

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439

There's my source. Rather old, but it was the first hit on Google, I'd read the article 2 years ago, and the analysis is likely still accurate. More forthcoming if necessary.

But it won't be because
Both of you are engaging in the kind of argument that generalises the mistakes of the other "side" to every individual on the other side - something that I have tried to avoid. For example, I never tried to drive the Jews into the sea; I expect my rights to be respected as an individual. In the same way, quoting the death tolls for each "side" does show a disproportionate number of Palestinian deaths (which, you may point out, are predominantly male of combat age) - this kind of argument does not help anyone, it is an exercise in assigning blame but with no practical consequence. No Palestinian civilian should be punished for the action of another Palestinian simply because they share nationality; likewise no Israeli civilian should be killed by a suicide bomber simply because he shares nationality with someone who has directly engaged in his oppression. I am trying to put things simply and comprehensibly.
I agree with this post. I was simply presenting an argument as to why Israel was not targeting civilians, which under international law is a prerequisite to a label of ethnic cleansing.

I think in the end we'd agree on a solution - there should be an Israeli and Palestinian state that coexist. We only differ on details concerning the events as they appear on the ground.

No. I've proposed over and over that the US get out of the UN and send them packing to Belgium. We'd then start a loose "Coalition of the Willing" like we did during the tsunami cleanup...something along the lines of NATO. All member countries would have to be democracies with TRULY elected governments. No sham elections like so many dictatorships/theocracies have. Coalition members protect and help each other and the rest can rot. Countries outside the Coalition can ask for help, but they must meet membership requirements if they are to even get help, economic, military or otherwise.

Do you realise that making the requirement "All member countries would have to be democracies with TRULY elected governments"... effectively means that the US couldn't join?

Not a Democracy, and the 'government' isn't 'truly' elected.

Easily proven wrong. Palestinian birth rates are higher than Israeli ones.


That doesn't prove anything wrong... I think you oversetimate the strength of your case.

Let me give you a little example of why:

I am trying to cut down a forest. There are a thousand 'adult' trees. Every day, I go cut down ONE tree. Every day, two saplings become mature enough to qualify as 'adult' trees.

Thus - I am not keeping up, and the whole forest will never be cut down.

But, the fact remains, I am still trying to cut the forest down... I'm just not quick enough.


Another point, of course, is that birthrates have little to do with genocide, and even less to do with the number of adults in a population at any gioven time... UNLESS other factors (such as infant mortality, and/or adult mortality) are ALSO considered.



The Israeli government committing genocide because it believes genocide to be wrong. End of story.

Are you a member of the Israeli government?

In fact, since you state, as fact, the opinion of ALL of the Israeli government (according to you), you would really need to be ALL the members...

You have no way to prove your claim.

So - hardly "end of story".


Personally - I doubt that most Israelis, or the Israeli government want Genocide... but that doesn't mean I'm right... and it doesn't mean that ALL Israelis feel that way.

One thing that saddens me when reading this, is that apparently the "bully" argument is valid in many peoples views.

"we have the sheer power, so we can do whatever we want" sounds an awful lot like in the third grade "i'm bigger than you, so i can take your lunch money" those kids didn't care much for the morals of it either...maybe they grew up and started posting here?

Sure most european citizens are against the wars in the middle east, i guess that proves it's an uneducated bunch who has no grasp on the politics of the rest of the world, unlike the american public who knows exactly what the deal is(not only with their own politics, but also everything in the middle east, as well as knowing what parties all european parliaments consists of...wow that's a lot of studying)

and one other thing i really cringe when i see, is when someone equals a muslim to a terrorist. sure there are muslim terrorists, but there's also christian, jewish and buddhist terrorists out there...and belive it or not, some aren't in it for a religion! and a lot of the socalled "muslim terrorists" are in direct violation of the rules of the koran, so they can't even call themselves muslims...much like someone who kills an innocent, can't call himself a christian(and thus, will be sent to hell...if that's your belief)

anyway, my main point was the bully argument for warfare...we're big so we'll do it...does that sound fair to anyone? even the bully when he thinks about it?

Cho