NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts

I am writing this to give people a brief rundown of the history of the conflict. I know this isn't really taught in American schools.

Jews have continually been living in Israel. Most people have been misled to believe that they all came around the 1930s and 1940s. That is incorrect. While most Jews were dispersed across the Roman Empire in 70 CE, a number did stay in Israel. It is an agreed upon fact among historians that thousands of Jews were in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Many of them were murdered by the Crusaders. The Jews and Muslims got along during these times. They actually fought side by side against the Crusaders.

There is a well documented that Jews lived in Israel during Ottoman rule. British reports state 15,000 lived in the Safed region alone in the 16th century. Population figures gathered by the British consul in Jerusalem in the 19th century showed that Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem at this time.

The Jews and Arabs got along for the most part. The exception would be in the 1830s when Egypt occupied the region. The Egyptians passed discriminating laws and encouraged anti-Jewish riots that were quite similar to pogroms.

The first great Aliyah (immigration) to Israel occured in the 1880s. Most of these Jews were from the Pale of Settlement. They fled to Israel as the Czars had been instigating pogroms against the Jews. Thousands were killed and beaten during this time. The Jews who came to Israel at the time mainly settled up north in the Jezreel Valley near the Sea of Galilee.

Zionism at the time was unorganized. THere was no universal zionist organisation. There was only a small group of Jews who decided Europe was no longer safe for the Jews. In 1897, Theodore Hertzl launched the modern Zionist movement. He predicted it would take 50 years to have an Israeli state. The partition vote came nearly 50 years to the day of his statement.

This area was unoccupied by Arabs or anyone else. The Jews bought the land from absentee Arab land owners who legally controlled the land. No one was displaced by the Jews in these cases. The land was mainly swampland. The Arab landowners throught they were ripping the Jews off. The Jews were able to deal with the malaria and mosquitos by draining the swams. They then farmed this land turning the wild swamps into what is by far the best farmland in the Middle East. Mark Twain had this to say after his 1867 visit to the area: (note, Twain wrote this in "The Innocents abroad

"Stirring scenes...occur in the valley [Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent--not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Dedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

This objective observation by Twain over a decade before the first Aliyah demonstrate that the land the Jews settled on was not occupied.

The persecution in Russia continued. The Second Aliyah began in 1904. It was sparked by a sharp increase in Pogroms. (This is the period that "Fiddler on the Roof" took place during. While Tevye was going to America, many of the peole leaving Anatevka would've likely made an Aliyah to Israel.)

These Jews of the 2nd Aliyah were more determined to redeem the land. They were the Jews who built up Kibbutzim all over the Jezreel Valley. They helped tame the swamps filled with malaria carrying mosquitoes. They also founded a town in the desert. That town founded in 1909 became the metropolis that is now Tel Aviv. The Arabs by contrast were living in squallor as they didn't work to reclaim the swamps of the Jezreel or the eroded Planes of Sharon in central Israel. The Jews eventually worked to plant trees to stop erosion of the soil. Central Israel eventually blossomed with mroe Kibbutzim. The Jews worked hard for the land. Many died from diseases as a result.

The Arabs benefited from the Jews. The Jews introduced new farming methods. They brought books, science, music, art, and of course jobs. The average Arab in the early 20th century probably would've welcomed the Jews. For the most part, both sides got along.

World War I broke out. The Ottoman Empire was allied with the Central Powers. The Jews risked a lot when they sided with the British during the war. Had the British failed to take the land, the Jews would've faced harsh reprocussions from the Ottomans. The British were so grateful for the Jewish support that a letter was written by British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour. The 1917 letter would later become known as the "Balfour Declaration." The Balfour Declaration called for the Establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. This declaration became legally binding when the League of Nations made it part of the British Mandate in Palestine.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't initially side with the Allies. They waited until defeat of the Ottoman Empire was imminent before declaring their support for the Allies. Even after declaring support, they did little to help win the war.

The Jews and Arabs had gotten along well to this point. That all changed in the 1920s. Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti was a powerful religious figure and could easily sway the hearts and minds of the Muslim population. Al-Husseini was strongly against the Balfour Declaration. He instigated some riots in 1920 and 1921. The Jews were forced to protect themselves. As a result, the Jews founded The Haganah. In 1928, Husseini began intensifying his anti-Jewish rhetoric. When the summer of 1929 rolled around, he ordered a pogrom against the Jews. The same Jews who were in the land to escape the Czar's pogroms now found themselves being terrorised by religious fanatics. The same Muslims who lived peacefully with the Jews for centuries were easily led by a charismatic cleric. The Palestinians were indoctrinated to hate the Jews at this point. The Muslims who partook in the riots shouted "Itbah al-Yahud" (kill the Jews) and "Nashrab dam al-Yahud" (we will drink the blood of the Jews.) The riots were started with no true instigation on the part of the Jews.

There was more immigration in the 1930s as Hitler took power in Germany. Unfortunately too few Jews saw the writing on the wall before it was too late. The Mufti was angered by the ever increasing flow of Jews into Palestine. In 1936, he started even more riots. The riots ended for some months as the Peel Commission investigated the matter. Full blame was put on Al-Husseini and the Arabs.

In 1937, the Peel Commission recommended a partition into a Jewish and Arab state. The partition would give the Jews Tel Aviv, a small portion of the Mediterranean coast, and the Jezreel Valley. These areas were nearly 100% Jewish. The Jews accepted this tiny slot of land. The Arabs responded with more riots instigated by the Mufti. The Mufti was going to be arrested by the British, but he was hiding in the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock). The Mufti snuck out one day and fled to Berlin, Germany.

In Berlin, the anti-semitic Mufti found many friends. He quickly became friends with Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann. Al-Husseini joined the Waffen-SS and helped recruit more people to join the SS. He made addresses on Nazi radio spreading lies about the Jews and further indroctrinating the German population with the idea that harming Jews was a noble cause. While Hitler was still debating how to deal with "the Jewish question," the Mufti was working with Himmler to push Hitler to authorizing the final solution. Many historians question whether the death camps like Aushwitz would've been used had Al-Husseini not tried to convince Hitler to kill all of the Jews. There was even a case where the Mufti intervened to stop Himmler from trading 5,000 Jewish children in exchange for German soldiers who were held as POWs. Most of the children were put to death.

The Mufti also continued to encourage violence against the Jews in Palestine. The riots continued into 1939. The result of the increased violence was the White Paper. Neville Chamberlain's government once again decided to do what they do best, appease. The riots ended, but the White Paper stopped Jewish immigration. The result was that the British Navy turned refugee ships around and sent them back to Germany. Six million Jews were condemned to the gas chambers and ovens as a result of the actions of the Palestinians and their leader.

As WWII began, the Hanagah was merged with the British Army and was instumental in defeating Viche French forces in Lebanon. The Arabs on the other hand treated Germans as liberators. They awaited for the time that the Germans would win and the Mufti would return. The Mufti had drawn up plans to open up death camps in Haifa so he could apply Hitler's methods to the Jews in Palestine.

When WWII ended, there were 3,000,000 European Jews left out of 9,000,000. Most went to the US or were in Displaced Person camps. The Aliyah Bet tried desperately to get Jews into Palestine and get the British to live up to their 1917 promise to give the Jews a state. In 1947, the UN Special Committe on Palestine (UNSCOP) looked at both sides of the issue and recommended partition into 2 states. The partition came to a vote in November 1947. In what became known as the Miracle at Flushing Meadows, the Israelis won an overwhelming vote. There were only 13 votes against Israel. 11 of the nations were Islamic and Greece was coerced to vote by Egypt under the threat that some of their citizens in Egypt would be harmed if the vote went the other way. The only nation swayed by the Arab argument was Cuba. The rest of the UN voted for partition. The final vote was 33-13.

The Jews quickly accepted the decision. The Arabs on the other hand threatened war. Many Palestinians started attacking Israeli settlements in late 1947. The War for Independence had begun. Israel fought back with nothing more than 10,000 trained Palmach and 50,000 untrained Haganah troops armed with handmade sten guns. They fought off the Palestinians and defended their villages and Kibbutzim.

On May 15, 1948, the British left Palestine and the Jews established the state of Israel. On that day, 7 Arab nations with modern armies equipped with fighter aircraft, bombers, tanks, and artillery attacked the newborn nation of Israel. It was 50,000,000 Arabs vs. 500,000 poorly armed Jews with nothing but willpower and the desire to survive. The Arabs were planning the death of all of the Jews. Al-Husseini returned to take command. Many Nazi war criminals who fled capture were harbored in Arab nations. They were officers in the Arab ranks during the war.

The Arabs asked many Palestinians to leave their homes in preparation for the war. The plan was that they would return in 2 months after the Jews were driven into the sea. Many did leave. Many decided to stay though. Those who stayed are now known as the "Israeli Arabs." The rest of the Arab population conveniently forgets to say that they are no different from the Palestinians except for the fact that they decided to not fight the Israelies and stayed neutral. Many of thse Israeli Arabs enjoy living in Israel. They serve on the Supreme Court and in the Knesset.

Israel won the 1947-1948 War of Independence despite all of the odds stacked against her.

The sad aftermath of the war was the 400,000 Palestinian refugees. I do not blame the people who were made refugees. They were brainwashed by Al-Husseini and filled with hate. They continue to be filled with hate by their leaders.

Former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm wrote the following in his 1972 memoirs:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. ... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children--all this in the service of political purposes."

It should also be noted that there were more Jews displaced after the conflict. There were almost 1,000,000 Sephardic Jews in Arab nations who were forced to leave following the 1948 war. Israel gladly took them in with operations such as Operation Magic Carpet. Israel took them in on a land that is 20% the size of Indiana. The Arabs on the other hand say they can't take in the Palestinians when they control land that is over 100 times the size of Israel.

The violence continued. In the 1950s, Fedayeen launched raids on some settlements being set up in the Negev (which is Israeli territory). Israel had to put a stop to this. The result was the 1956 Suez War. In 1967, the Arabs blockaded Israel and massed troops on the border for attack. The Mossad had a high level source who informed Israel war was imminent. Israel launched a preemptive strike which saved the tiny nation.

Israel took some land in this defensive war. Most of the land was given back to Egypt in exchange for peace. The lands currently held by Israel are the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Golan Heights can be legally annexed according to UN Resolution 242 as holding them is necessary to give Israel an ability to defend itself from a Syrian attack. As for the wall, Israel can take the high lands in the West Bank that are needed to ensure Israel can defend herself. Most of the land will be given back to the Palestinians when the borders are drawn in 2009. They would've gotten more had they accepted the 2000 Camp David and Taba offers.

The Yom Kippur War was a great travesty. The Jews were attacked without warning on their holiest day of the year. It was meant to be a war of annihilation. I shudder to think what would've happened had Moshe Dayan not been an Israeli General.

The Israelis do not want to wipe out the Palestinian population. They have the abiltiy to do so at any time, but they don't. When they strike terrorists, they try to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately they still occur. That is the reality of war. The Palestinians on the other hand don't recognize Israel. Hamas, which got 74% of the Palestinian vote, doesn't recognize Israel in its charter. It in fact calls for the destruction of the Jews.

Of course it angers people, but they didn't put themselves there, we did! Israel was pretty deserted at the time, and the arabs were not able to do much when we put them there. This means that the jewish state of Israel eventually turned into a large and strong country with cities and people, and it's too late to undo the problems this may have caused by getting rid of Israel. The damage is done, there is absolutely no excuse to terrorize Israel.

You can't fight fire with fire.

-snip-


Love it!

Love it!

I sincerely doubt that he wrote that in the 3 minutes that his posting time would suggest.

I sincerely doubt that he wrote that in the 3 minutes that his posting time would suggest.
I did write it on another message board. A White Sox board if you would believe it or not. I just reposted it from my post a few weeks ago there.

Of course it angers people, but they didn't put themselves there, we did! Israel was pretty deserted at the time, and the arabs were not able to do much when we put them there. This means that the jewish state of Israel eventually turned into a large and strong country with cities and people, and it's too late to undo the problems this may have caused by getting rid of Israel. The damage is done, there is absolutely no excuse to terrorize Israel.

You can't fight fire with fire.

Technically you can. You see, you keep the fire under control, and burn a specific section of the woods, and then extinguish it so when the not under control fire gets there, it has nothing to burn.

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts
Israel is not going anywhere. It's permanently located there. Israel's neighbors have to learn to live with that.

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts

Being a Jew within the Third Reich was provocative...

The comparison is alamist, but sound. Being provocative is not a crime.

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts

I'm going to say that this here is flamebait.

While the biblical homeland of the Jews is part of modern day Israel, the actions of Israel are provocative and over the top. Three IDF soldiers were kidnapped so Israel retaliates by basically bombing Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age. Is this fair, I think not. While I think Israel should try to get its kidnapped soldiers back, there is no reason to bomb civilan targets that had nothing to do with the kiddnapping. Not many countries want to speak out against Israel due to the holocaust hangover and possibly being labled as anti-semetic. I think that Israel is as much a terrorist state than they claim Lebanon, Syria, and Iran to be. Getting your soldier back is one thing, killing innocent civilians is another. I can see why many in the middle east wish for Israels destruction, there actions have created this hatred.

I'm going to say that this here is flamebait.

I'm going to disagree, he rases a good point. It may be wrong (in my opinion) but i have seen it said many times on this forum without it being reported.

The damage is done, there is absolutely no excuse to terrorize Israel.

You can't fight fire with fire.
So what do you tell the Arabs? "sorry we fucked you over, deal with it, but dont attack the source of much of your problems and pain"? That doesnt really make sense. As long as Israel continues to terrorize others there will be justification to terrorize it.

Israel retaliates by basically bombing Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age

What newspapers have you been reading?

I'm going to disagree, he rases a good point. It may be wrong (in my opinion) but i have seen it said many times on this forum without it being reported.

Emotions run high on here anytime anything controversial is said.

Emotions run high on here anytime anything controversial is said.
don't you mean idiotic? (at least in this case)

So what do you tell the Arabs? "sorry we fucked you over, deal with it, but dont attack the source of much of your problems and pain"? That doesnt really make sense. As long as Israel continues to terrorize others there will be justification to terrorize it.

Except from the fact that they are not terrorizing others, neither should they be a problem if it wasn't for the unneeded conflict.

I did write it on another message board. A White Sox board if you would believe it or not. I just reposted it from my post a few weeks ago there.
did you get banned from forum?

So what do you tell the Arabs? "sorry we fucked you over, deal with it, but dont attack the source of much of your problems and pain"? That doesnt really make sense. As long as Israel continues to terrorize others there will be justification to terrorize it.
Answer my post if you want any credibility here. You obviously know jack about history.

What newspapers have you been reading?


I watch the news and read the papers, look at all the places Israel is bombing in Lebanon, the airport, fuel depots, the city of Beruit itself. It is destroying all the progress that was made in Lebanon after the lebonese civil war.

While the biblical homeland of the Jews is part of modern day Israel, the actions of Israel are provocative and over the top.

Even though Israeli action was provoked by terrorists?

Three IDF soldiers were kidnapped so Israel retaliates by basically bombing Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age. Is this fair, I think not.

Into the stone age? Where are you getting that crap from?

While I think Israel should try to get its kidnapped soldiers back, there is no reason to bomb civilan targets that had nothing to do with the kiddnapping.

Define a civilian target that was not used for an advantage by the terrorists.

Not many countries want to speak out against Israel due to the holocaust hangover and possibly being labled as anti-semetic.

Or because Israel has a right to defend itself from those who want to do it harm? Ever thought of that?

I think that Israel is as much a terrorist state than they claim Lebanon, Syria, and Iran to be. Getting your soldier back is one thing, killing innocent civilians is another. I can see why many in the middle east wish for Israels destruction, there actions have created this hatred.

Despite the fact that Israel wants to live in peace with their neighbors but those around them fund terrorists to prevent said peace from occuring?

did you get banned from forum?
a week long ban for saying that Sox SP Jon Garland should be named "Judy Garland." Some of the mods don't like it when you make fun of a player. (especially their favorite)

Answer my post if you want any credibility here. You obviously know jack about history.

Why should we read some ridiculously long post which you didn't even tailor for its altered forum?

Why should we read some ridiculously long post which you didn't even tailor for its altered forum?
Because to not respond to it would be to ignore the facts, something that the anti-zionist crowd is quite good at doing.

Israel retaliates by basically bombing Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age.

70 Lebanese civilians (of which how many were Hezbollah members we don't know) are dead. No attacks have been carried out in Palestinian settlements in this conflict, so I'll consider their deaths to be 0

If Israel cared to bring Lebanon to the stone age, they would have started with carpet bombing everything from the border to Beirut, then sent tank lines from one side of the country to the other, shelling anything that moved.

Where the hell are you getting your facts from? 70 people is not "bombing them into the stone age" and it's certainly less than the number of Israeli civilian deaths in the last 6 years due to terrorist acts.

Israel has the capacity to destroy Lebanon in a few days, they haven't. Get your damn facts straight and stop spewing propaganda. If Israel wanted to truly, and fully wipe out Lebanon, then Beirut would be called New Jerusalim by now.

I watch the news and read the papers, look at all the places Israel is bombing in Lebanon, the airport, fuel depots, the city of Beruit itself. It is destroying all the progress that was made in Lebanon after the lebonese civil war.

You mean the ports and the airport that weapons went through that were used against Israel? The fuel depos that fuel hezbollah's vehicles? The City that houses Hezbollah's HQ?

70 Lebanese civilians (of which how many were Hezbollah members we don't know) are dead. No attacks have been carried out in Palestinian settlements in this conflict, so I'll consider their deaths to be 0

hate to update ya but it is over 100 now. Reports are saying 106 people dead.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts
Well yeah, but we're stuck with it now, so any solution proposing we get rid of Israel isn't going to happen. Maybe if we wait a few decades until everyone who was around when Israel was created has died, then we might be able to have meaningful diplomatic talks without people demanding that all the Israelis go to Europe.

hate to update ya but it is over 100 now. Reports are saying 106 people dead.

CNN seems to be pegging it at 85. I think the 106 person total are combined Lebanese/Israeli

a week long ban for saying that Sox SP Jon Garland should be named "Judy Garland." Some of the mods don't like it when you make fun of a player. (especially their favorite)


Thats bullshit!

CNN seems to be pegging it at 85. I think the 106 person total are combined Lebanese/Israeli

Numbers are all over the place which happens in a warzone.

And let's point something else out about those horrible strikes on the city which are murdering scores of innocent Lebanese:

Israeli warplanes hit Hezbollah's main headquarters in Beirut, which was struck Friday as well, according to Lebanese interior ministry officials. No casualties were reported from those strikes, the officials said.

In other words, those raids on Beirut, which are killing so many innocents...never actually KILLED ANYONE!

Numbers are all over the place which happens in a warzone.

Either way, 100 people in a population of 4 million seems hardly the slaughter now, does it?

Either way, 100 people in a population of 4 million seems hardly the slaughter now, does it?

Bad enough though.

Because to not respond to it would be to ignore the facts, something that the anti-zionist crowd is quite good at doing.

Boring your "opponents" to death, has no place in a debate.

Well, it is not conducive to a good one.

Bad enough though.

But not enough to justify terrorism.

But not enough to justify terrorism.

How is hitting legit targets terrorism?

Boring your "opponents" to death, has no place in a debate.
How the hell can you debate if you know jack shit about the history? (which is obviously the case with you)

Answer my post if you want any credibility here. You obviously know jack about history.
Look, I know the history of region in detail and we can both spin history to make it look as if each of our side is correct. Not to mention that post is long and I dont feel like going through the whole thing.

Bad enough though.

Sure, it's tragic. But it's war.

And here's some more quotes from CNN demonstrating how Israel is currently bombing them "to the stoneage"

Also targeted were roads and bridges near the eastern border with Syria to prevent the smuggling of weapons and possibly the whisking away of two captured Israeli soldiers from Lebanon into Syria, the Israel Defense Forces said.

Arab media reports say the strike happened in what is regarded as a no-man's-land east of Baalbek, Lebanon.


So blowing up roads in an area where nobody lives, which killed nobody, and could be used as tactical value to bring things into, and out of, Syria, is the same as blowing them to the stone age.

Look, I know the history of region in detail and we can both spin history to make it look as if each of our side is correct. Not to mention that post is long and I dont feel like going through the whole thing.
You can't deny the first part of the post about the lack of settlement in the area by Palestinians and how there has been a constant Jewish presence in Israel since the Exodus. (meaning they never left)

Sure, it's tragic. But it's war.

Agreed.

And here's some more quotes from CNN demonstrating how Israel is currently bombing them "to the stoneage"



So blowing up roads in an area where nobody lives, which killed nobody, and could be used as tactical value to bring things into, and out of, Syria, is the same as blowing them to the stone age.

Thank you for injecting truth into this madness.

How is hitting legit targets terrorism?

I was talking about the Palestininans, as in, what Israel did then is not enough to justify terrorism to Israel, which was claimed earlier on

How the hell can you debate if you know jack shit about the history? (which is obviously the case with you)

What justifies that assertion? Bear in mind that I've not made any posts in this thread regarding Israel.

You can't deny the first part of the post about the lack of settlement in the area by Palestinians and how there has been a constant Jewish presence in Israel since the Exodus. (meaning they never left)
It is true that the jews bought SOME land from the Arabs. But to say Arabs werent settled there is just a lie, like that slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land". That just wrong. when Israel was formed many Palestinians fleed their homes fearing Jewish massacres(which did occur). And then when they tried to return home the jews denied them. This is clearly stealing their land.

I was talking about the Palestininans, as in, what Israel did then is not enough to justify terrorism to Israel, which was claimed earlier on

Ah my mistake.

. Six million Jews were condemned to the gas chambers and ovens as a result of the actions of the Palestinians and their leader.



I have heard some very anti-Palestinian statements in my time, but this actually made me confused; whether to laugh or cry.

To try and suggest that the Palestinians are responsible for the disgusting actions of the Nazi regime in the holocaust is quite ridiculous. This kind of statement about Palestinians is no better than anti-semitism levelled at Israeli Jews.

I personally don't think the existence itself of Israel is provocative. However, the Israeli government's actions (occupation of the Palestian territories and the latest completely disproportionate response to the soldier kidnappings) certainly are incredibly provocative.

It is true that the jews bought SOME land from the Arabs. But to say Arabs werent settled there is just a lie, like that slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land". That just wrong. when Israel was formed many Palestinians fleed their homes fearing Jewish massacres(which did occur). And then when they tried to return home the jews denied them. This is clearly stealing their land.THe Jezreel was not settled at all. Read my evidence cited in my post. That is where the Jews settled. THere was only one massacre carried out by the IRgun. The Irgun were not recognized by the Jewish government. They were in fact outcasts. The Haganah didn't carry out massacres. THe Muslims carried out far more massacres against the Jews than the JEws did against the Muslims.

What land was stolen by the Jews? The majority of land they got was the Negev (where no one lived.) DUring the 1948 war, all of the Palestinian land was taken, but very little was taken by the Jews. Gaza and the West Bank were taken by Egypt and Jordan.

I have heard some very anti-Palestinian statements in my time, but this actually made me confused; whether to laugh or cry.

To try and suggest that the Palestinians are responsible for the disgusting actions of the Nazi regime in the holocaust is quite ridiculous. This kind of statement about Palestinians is no better than anti-semitism levelled at Israeli Jews.

I personally don't think the existence itself of Israel is provocative. However, the Israeli government's actions (occupation of the Palestian territories and the latest completely disproportionate response to the soldier kidnappings) certainly are incredibly provocative.
When the leader of the Palestinians was one of the driving forces that pushed Hitler to the "Final Solution," then you can see where I am coming from.

I have heard some very anti-Palestinian statements in my time, but this actually made me confused; whether to laugh or cry.

To try and suggest that the Palestinians are responsible for the disgusting actions of the Nazi regime in the holocaust is quite ridiculous. This kind of statement about Palestinians is no better than anti-semitism levelled at Israeli Jews.

I personally don't think the existence itself of Israel is provocative. However, the Israeli government's actions (occupation of the Palestian territories and the latest completely disproportionate response to the soldier kidnappings) certainly are incredibly provocative.
I disagree, the surrounding arab countries should just get use to the fact that the Israelis are there to stay and that no amount of terrorist attacks are going to stop them, they will infact inrage them to retaliate in long costly wars. Why not just leave Israel alone?

When the leader of the Palestinians was one of the driving forces that pushed Hitler to the "Final Solution," then you can see where I am coming from.

Really? Do you have a source for this?

(I'm not saying i disagree, I have just never heard this before)

When the leader of the Palestinians was one of the driving forces that pushed Hitler to the "Final Solution," then you can see where I am coming from.
It's simply not true that it was even a minor factor of significance, yet alone a "driving force" as you put it.

Hitler and the Nazi movement were anti-semitic from the beginning. Especially Hitler. I spent a semester during my time at university studying the holocaust, and I have never heard of such an accusation before.

This is twisting/spinning of a fact to the highest extreme.

Really? Do you have a source for this?

(I'm not saying i disagree, I have just never heard this before)
I got it from some books I read. If you want to look online, please look up "Haj Amin El-Husseini" I'll try and post some links.

http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/arabnazi.html

It's simply not true that it was even a minor factor of significance, yet alone a "driving force" as you put it.

Hitler and the Nazi movement were anti-semitic from the beginning. Especially Hitler. I spent a semester during my time at university studying the holocaust, and I have never heard of such an accusation before.

This is twisting/spinning of a fact to the highest extreme.He was anti-semitic, but he still was unsure on how to deal with the Jews. Himmler was unable to fully convince Hitler. It was when the Mufti joined in the persuasion that Hitler finally made his decision. It's amazing how history has completely forgotten the crimes of the Mufti.

The existence of Israel in the Middle East is provocative in the same way that the existence of openly gay people in the US South is provocative.

I disagree, the surrounding arab countries should just get use to the fact that the Israelis are there to stay and that no amount of terrorist attacks are going to stop them, they will infact inrage them to retaliate in long costly wars. Why not just leave Israel alone?

Or perhaps the Israeli government should realise that the illegal occupation of a peoples' land is always going to highly irritate those people that are being occupied. One can see this in numerous examples in history, most recently in Iraq. People don't want to be occupied illegally by a foreign power.

Israel argues that it is attacking Lebanon to make its government and people drive Hizbollah from the south of their country. The reality is that the majority of the Lebanese are some of the most moderate Arabs around. Beirut is one of the most multicultural, open and 'western' Arab capitals - many women are veiless, there are many bars and nightclubs etc. Most of these people do not support Hizbollah or violence, they've only just got rid of their Syrian occupiers around a year ago. However, one thing is true, now that Israel attacks them, their opinion is likely to become more hardline and behind those that defend them against such a disproportionate attack. It's not likely to get them to force Hizbollah out after Israel have attacked innocent Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Israel's strategy seems only designed to enrage the terrorists further, leading to more innocent civilian lives being endangered.

The existence of Israel is provocative.
To some of the ... less intellecually astute among us, the existence of America is "provocative." All you need to do is go back far enough into history to discover that almost every nation began with an attack, a takeover, or some sort of similar violence or force. Isreal is in fact one of the few nations in existence which seems to have a claim going back into the very earliest days of written history.

Or perhaps the Israeli government should realise that the illegal occupation of a peoples' land is always going to highly irritate those people that are being occupied. One can see this in numerous examples in history, most recently in Iraq. People don't want to be occupied illegally by a foreign power.

Israel argues that it is attacking Lebanon to make its government and people drive Hizbollah from the south of their country. The reality is that the majority of the Lebanese are some of the most moderate Arabs around. Beirut is one of the most multicultural, open and 'western' Arab capitals - many women are veiless, there are many bars and nightclubs etc. Most of these people do not support Hizbollah or violence, they've only just got rid of their Syrian occupiers around a year ago. However, one thing is true, now that Israel attacks them, their opinion is likely to become more hardline and behind those that defend them against such a disproportionate attack. It's not likely to get them to force Hizbollah out after Israel have attacked innocent Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Israel's strategy seems only designed to enrage the terrorists further, leading to more innocent civilian lives being endangered.

One thing I have yet to see is a suggestion on what you think Israel SHOULD do? Sit there and let Hezbollah launch rockets across their borders while the Lebanese people elect them to even more positions of power?

Maybe in 20 years Lebanon would have convinced Hezbollah to disarm, OR maybe in 20 years Hezbollah will be running Lebanon. Do you suggest that Israel sit and wait to find out while more missles are launched?

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts

Hindsight is wonderful thing. Israel is there now though and theres no going back. What needs to end is the occupation of the territories.

One thing I have yet to see is a suggestion on what you think Israel SHOULD do? Sit there and let Hezbollah launch rockets across their borders while the Lebanese people elect them to even more positions of power?

Maybe in 20 years Lebanon would have convinced Hezbollah to disarm, OR maybe in 20 years Hezbollah will be running Lebanon. Do you suggest that Israel sit and wait to find out while more missles are launched?

The missle attacks have only reached the present itensity after Israel's actions against the Lebanese civilians.

Are you suggesting that the Lebanese people should all be collectively punished for the actions of Hezbollah? Should for instance the UK have bombed Dublin and ordinary Irish civilians after the IRA bombed London?

I am writing this to give people a brief rundown of the history of the conflict. I *snip*, both sides got along...

Yet by the end of 1947 total land purchased amounted to 400,000 acres, and the majority of businesses and agricultural produce came from and was in Arab hands. Go look it up.


The Arabs on the other hand didn't initially side with the Allies. They waited until defeat of the Ottoman Empire was imminent before declaring their support for the Allies. Even after declaring support, they did little to help win the war..

Total bollocks. Thats utterly, utterly untrue. They did not wait until the defeat of the Ottomans. Where did you get this shite from?

.

There was more immigration in the 1930s as Hitler took power in Germany. Unfortunately too few Jews saw the writing on the wall before it was too late. The Mufti was angered by the ever increasing flow of Jews into Palestine. In 1936, he started even more riots. The riots ended for some months as the Peel Commission investigated the matter. Full blame was put on Al-Husseini and the Arabs.

It blamed unemployment, Arab discontent with not acheiving their national aspirations (being shafted by the British), double talk on the part of the administration to both sides, and fears of increased settler immigration, which it limited, with disastrous consequences for those trying to escape Germany.


.
The Mufti also continued to encourage violence against the Jews in Palestine. The riots continued into 1939. The result of the increased violence was the White Paper. Neville Chamberlain's government once again decided to do what they do best, appease. The riots ended, but the White Paper stopped Jewish immigration. The result was that the British Navy turned refugee ships around and sent them back to Germany. Six million Jews were condemned to the gas chambers and ovens as a result of the actions of the Palestinians and their leader..


The mufti left the area in 1936 and never returned. The British were the ones who slowed immigration to prevent further trouble and as they did so a full 3 years before WWII, and considering it was over half way thru the war when the allies first began to receive concrete reports on the Holocaust, how the fuck could the Palestinians get the blame for that? Get a fucking grip.




.
The Arabs asked many Palestinians to leave their homes in preparation for the war. The plan was that they would return in 2 months after the Jews were driven into the sea. Many did leave. Many decided to stay though. Those who stayed are now known as the "Israeli Arabs." The rest of the Arab population conveniently forgets to say that they are no different from the Palestinians except for the fact that they decided to not fight the Israelies and stayed neutral. Many of thse Israeli Arabs enjoy living in Israel. They serve on the Supreme Court and in the Knesset...

In "The Beginnings of the Palestinian Refugee problem" by Benny Morris, of over 300 villages deserted by Arabs from what is now Israel, only 6 were found to have left due to any Arab 'authority" the vast majority of the rest either left due to Israeli attack or expulsion.

And why is there only a few Bedouin villages recognised, though they predate the founding of the Israeli state, and over 100 settler villages declared "legal"?


.
It should also be noted that there were more Jews displaced after the conflict. There were almost 1,000,000 Sephardic Jews in Arab nations who were forced to leave following the 1948 war. Israel gladly took them in with operations such as Operation Magic Carpet. Israel took them in on a land that is 20% the size of Indiana. The Arabs on the other hand say they can't take in the Palestinians when they control land that is over 100 times the size of Israel....

Between 1948 and 1967.

.
Israel took some land in this defensive war. Most of the land was given back to Egypt in exchange for peace. The lands currently held by Israel are the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Golan Heights can be legally annexed according to UN Resolution 242 as holding them is necessary to give Israel an ability to defend itself from a Syrian attack. .

Not in your wildest dreams does it do so. It specifically rules out aqquistion of territrory by conquest.

.
As for the wall, Israel can take the high lands in the West Bank that are needed to ensure Israel can defend herself. Most of the land will be given back to the Palestinians when the The Palestinians on the other hand don't recognize Israel. Hamas, which got 74% of the Palestinian vote, doesn't recognize Israel in its charter. It in fact calls for the destruction of the Jews.

The PLO recognise the Israeli state. They wouldnt deal with them though.

I got it from some books I read. If you want to look online, please look up "Haj Amin El-Husseini" I'll try and post some links.

http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/arabnazi.html

Forward and to the right of me is my bookshelf where i keep the non-fiction.
On it is Alan Bullock "Hitler and Stalin - Parallel lives", "Hitler" John Toland, "Hitler " in two parts by Ian Kershaw, "Hitlers willing Executioners" Daniel Goldenhagen as well as "Albert Speer - his struggle with truth" gitta Sereny. Why have they no mention of this? Tolands is the oldest with Kershawsonly 3 or 4 years old I think and I don't remember a chapter devoted to the Mufti. Because the man responsible for the holocaust would get a chapter, id say.

I am writing this to give people a brief rundown of the history of the conflict. I know this isn't really taught in American schools.

Thank you very much for an excellent history lesson. I have learned a lot from this.

The missle attacks have only reached the present itensity after Israel's actions against the Lebanese civilians.

Are you suggesting that the Lebanese people should all be collectively punished for the actions of Hezbollah? Should for instance the UK have bombed Dublin and ordinary Irish civilians after the IRA bombed London?

I'll ask again since you ignored the question. What else should Israel have done to stop the attacks into their borders other than sit on their ass and wait?

And by your comment of they haven't reached present intensity before, I suppose by that you mean that occassional rockets and occassional 14 year old girls as suicide bombers are ok.

In that case, please point me to the cutoff of where it is no longer ok to sit back and let terrorists hit your nation?

@IDF:

As your name implies, you are a pro-israeli guy (call it a Zionist, if you want) - and for some reason, most Zionists claim that they are the masters of history and that others are idiots.

Sadly, you - like others of your kind just "twist" history. By twisting I mean that you present Israel as a oppressed country being attacked by brutal Arabs (which you people call "terroists" or "barbarians")

Have you guys forgot the pharse : "Israel's boundaries are from the Euphrat to the Nile" ? That many Zionists use. Their intentions are clear.

Thanks to the Zionist propaganda that rotates the facts of this issue, they made the oppressor look like the oppressed and the oppressed look like the oppressor.

DON'T GET BRAINSWASHED BY ZIONIST PROPAGANDA.

The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative.

There are many states in this world today that were formed by taking land from others. :rolleyes: Some examples; all the countries of North and South America and lots of countries in Africa.

I'll ask again since you ignored the question. What else should Israel have done to stop the attacks into their borders other than sit on their ass and wait?

And by your comment of they haven't reached present intensity before, I suppose by that you mean that occassional rockets and occassional 14 year old girls as suicide bombers are ok.

In that case, please point me to the cutoff of where it is no longer ok to sit back and let terrorists hit your nation?

Israel is not going to stop the attacks by acting in a disproportionate mannor and collectively punishing the entire Lebanese population. This is what Israel is doing; killing innocent Lebanese people and wrecking the Lebanese economy by destroying civilian infrastructure and imposing an illegal blockage on the soveriegn state of Lebanon.

Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, this action in Lebanon goes very dramatically further than simple self-defence against Hezbollah.

The best thing Israel can do to stop these attacks is to comply with international law and UN resolutions and end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. That would certainly help Israel's security situation.

Incidentally, you also ignored my question.

While the biblical homeland of the Jews is part of modern day Israel, the actions of Israel are provocative and over the top. Three IDF soldiers were kidnapped so Israel retaliates by basically bombing Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age. Is this fair,

The kidnapping of the soldiers is an act of war. War is never "fair."

Should Britain have bombed dublin?

Depends. Were IRA headquarters in Dublin, and would 0 civilians have died as a result?

Then I'm fine with that.

Oh, I guess you're ignoring the fact that NOBODY died in the Beirut bombings of Hezbollah headquarters are you? Because if you actually recognized that nobody was actually killed in the Beirut bombings, and no "innocent civilians" lost their lives, then you may have to accept that this is something less than evil Israel carpet bombing Lebanon to non existance, and actually showing reasonable restraint.

And we can't have that huh?

Israel is not going to stop the attacks by acting in a disproportionate mannor and collectively punishing the entire Lebanese population. This is what Israel is doing; killing innocent Lebanese people and wrecking the Lebanese economy by destroying civilian infrastructure and imposing an illegal blockage on the soveriegn state of Lebanon.

Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, this action in Lebanon goes very dramatically further than simple self-defence against Hezbollah.

The best thing Israel can do to stop these attacks is to comply with international law and UN resolutions and end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. That would certainly help Israel's security situation.

Incidentally, you also ignored my question.


Please stop throwing terms out like "illegal". The destruction, occupation, or blockade of areas like docks and airports are perfectly fine and legal within the context of modern warfare.

0 civilians died as a result of the bombings of Hezbollah's offices in Beirut.

0 civilians died as a result of the bombings of the northern roads and bridges leading to Syria.

The majority of civilian deaths resulted from the quite legal blockade and destruction of the docks and airports, all of which are consistant with modern rules of warfare.

you lose, try again.

Moreover you are doing a great job of talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time, but just in case you dont see why lemme explain it to you.

You say Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah, but then you decry them attacking infrastructure that supplies Hezbollah. So in other words, Israel can attack Hezbollah, as long as they dont do anything that actually hurts or hinders them.

Brilliant that, it's amazing you're not with the pentagon right now, we could use a fine strategist like yourself.

Or maybe you could realize that if you're going to recognize Israel's right to defend against Hezbollah, then you have to recognize that they have the right to stop Hezbollah from using supply lines. That's rule 1 of warfare.

Should Britain have bombed dublin?

Depends. Were IRA headquarters in Dublin, and would 0 civilians have died as a result?

Then I'm fine with that.

Oh, I guess you're ignoring the fact that NOBODY died in the Beirut bombings of Hezbollah headquarters are you? Because if you actually recognized that nobody was actually killed in the Beirut bombings, and no "innocent civilians" lost their lives, then you may have to accept that this is something less than evil Israel carpet bombing Lebanon to non existance, and actually showing reasonable restraint.

And we can't have that huh?

92 Lebanese people have died in the Israeli attacks.

One of the attacks killed 18 fleeing Lebanon, of those 9 were children.

I don't call that reasonable restraint or a proportionate response.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=559553&previousRenderType=6
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5183870.stm

snip.

Love how you leave out some very interesting parts of Israeli history, like the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Before Arab terrorists there were Jewish terrorists(Not saying this becuase I'm pro-Arab, cause I'm not, tho nor am I pro_Israeli both are at fault, I'm saying it cause it is an often overlooked fact.) I can pull up plenty of websites if you would like. That was an extremely biased summary, although I do agree with much of it and it was a very nice summary(Proving you do have plenty of knowledge on the subject), still extremely biased.

As for population in the early 1900's, it stood as follows in Palestine:

December 1918:

Muslim Arab: 512,000
Christain Arab: 61,000
Jewish: 66,000

Qouted from the book, Holy War(very good book, lots of info) page 91, written by Karen Armstrong. That is a British census, note this is AFTER teh start of Jewish immigration and Zionism, in 1900 there were MUCH less Jews in Palestine/Israel(though I do not have exact numbers, I'm sure they could be found if you wanted to look hard enough, but honestly I'm to lazy)


As for the rest, hug post, to big to pick apart, just wanted to point out those two things.

I watch the news and read the papers, look at all the places Israel is bombing in Lebanon, the airport, fuel depots, the city of Beruit itself. It is destroying all the progress that was made in Lebanon after the lebonese civil war.

The airport, fuel depots, and bridges are legitimate targets as it prevents the enemy, Hezbollah, from being re-supplied by Syria and Iran. Same goes with the blockade of the ports. The places in the city that are being bombed are the headquarters of Hezbollah, again a legitimate military target.

While Israel does have a right to get its soldiers back from an illegal kidnapping, they do not have the right to attack a soverign nation. So its ok to punish an entire people ie the Lebanese for what Hezbollah has done. Its ok to blockade a country, cripple its economy and possiblly destablize the Lebonese government over two soldiers? It seems to me that Israelis would be better off working to get them back instead of attacking a sovergn nation and possibly make Hezbollah more popular than it is. Look what happened when the Palestinians voted, Hamas anyone.

As long as Israel continues to react with overwhelming and over the top force against anyone who crosses them, they are always going to have groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah wanting there destruction.

It just never ceases to amaze me how many people stick up for Israel no matter what they do. How many innocent Lebanese of Palestinians have to die at the hands of the IDF for it to be too much force by Israel. 100, 1000, 10,000?

92 Lebanese people have died in the Israeli attacks.



None of which were in Beirut when they bombed Hezbollah headquarters. If you're going to make an analogy stick with it. You asked should Britain had bombed Dublin, the analogy of Israel bombing Beirut. I said if Britain could take out IRA's headquarters without killing anyone then they should have gone right ahead.

Now you pull out that 92 people have died. True...none of them from the Beirut bombings though. Stick with your own analogy.

Most of those who died were in and around the airport and docks, both of which are legitimate military targets.

And who said anything about proportionate response in war?

How many innocent Lebanese of Palestinians have to die at the hands of the IDF for it to be too much force by Israel. 100, 1000, 10,000?

Stop bringing Palestinians into it, it has NOTHING to do with THIS issue.

And I will say that more than 100 people have to die in a WAR before I consider it excessive yes.

Why should we read some ridiculously long post which you didn't even tailor for its altered forum?

Because it is educational and applicable. :eek:
What you just said is; The post is to long and I am lazy so I won't bother to read it. I'll just criticize the poster. I can see you are going places in life. :(

None of which were in Beirut when they bombed Hezbollah headquarters. If you're going to make an analogy stick with it. You asked should Britain had bombed Dublin, the analogy of Israel bombing Beirut. I said if Britain could take out IRA's headquarters without killing anyone then they should have gone right ahead.

Now you pull out that 92 people have died. True...none of them from the Beirut bombings though. Stick with your own analogy.

Most of those who died were in and around the airport and docks, both of which are legitimate military targets.

And who said anything about proportionate response in war?

So i guess for there families, wrong place, wrong time, too bad. Not everyone Lebanese killed has been a Hezbollah member, thus an innocent

Stop bringing Palestinians into it, it has NOTHING to do with THIS issue.

And I will say that more than 100 people have to die in a WAR before I consider it excessive yes.

The way the Israelis are acting toward Lebanon is no different than they way they act against the Palestinan Territories, the general actions of the IDF are the same, so in that reguard it does have to do with the Palestinians.

So i guess for there families, wrong place, wrong time, too bad. Not everyone Lebanese killed has been a Hezbollah member, thus an innocent

And innocent people die in war.

Tragic yes.

But war means that innocent civilians in the wrong place wrong time will die. That is war.

None of which were in Beirut when they bombed Hezbollah headquarters. If you're going to make an analogy stick with it. You asked should Britain had bombed Dublin, the analogy of Israel bombing Beirut. I said if Britain could take out IRA's headquarters without killing anyone then they should have gone right ahead.

Now you pull out that 92 people have died. True...none of them from the Beirut bombings though. Stick with your own analogy.

Most of those who died were in and around the airport and docks, both of which are legitimate military targets.

And who said anything about proportionate response in war?

I am sorry, but I think 92 lives being ended is significant. Israel is not just targeting Beirut, it has targeted areas across Lebanese territory.

My question regarding Dublin was an exaple to find out whether or not you consider the idea of collective punishment acceptable. I do not. The Lebanese people as a totality are not responsible for the actions of the Hezbollah, just as the Irish people as a totality were not responsible for the actions of the IRA. In fact, there is a parellel, most Irish people deplored the loss of life the IRA's terrorism inflicted, just as most Lebanese opinion is against terrorism by Hezbollah. Lebanon is one of the most moderate Arab states, and is just now coming out from behind years of Syrian dominance. Israel is seriously destablising the middle east by its actions. It's stupid and not thought out at all.

War is a completely disproportionate response to this crisis. Collective punishement is disgusting. It has already, and will only lead to more, innoccent people losing their lives.

ABout Hezbollah and Lebanon, one thing people must realize...

Hezbollah and Lebanon are two DIFFERENT things, Hezbollah is NOT Lebanon and vice versa. Hezbollah is NOT supported by the Lebanese government, although they do have a stranglehold on it.

The GRAND majority of Maronite Lebanese(Half the population, not exactly but about 45% so close enough) are anti-Hezbollah, hell many Maronites WANT Israel to move in on the ground and kick Hezbollah out. Granted, manny of the Shia in Lebanon support Hezbollah, the majority of Lebanese are not pro-Hezbollah.

The only problem is, Lebanon has no where near the strength it needs to kick Hezbollah out, for all intents and purposes, Syria is still controlling the nation although its control has lessened a lot from a year ago. People still can not speak out against Hezbollah, unless they wish to face severe reprisals. Lebanon is, and has been for 20 odd years, the battleground for Syria, Iran, Israel and other major Middle East players and Lebanon doesn't have the strength to do a thing about it.

Look, I know the history of region in detail and we can both spin history to make it look as if each of our side is correct. Not to mention that post is long and I dont feel like going through the whole thing.

Ahh! The truth; "I prefer to wallow in my ignorance." Good going.

The way the Israelis are acting toward Lebanon is no different than they way they act against the Palestinan Territories, the general actions of the IDF are the same, so in that reguard it does have to do with the Palestinians.

What the IDF does in Palestine has no baring on what the IDF does in Lebanon. If you wish to claim that right now, at this moment, Israel is conducting illegal acts against LEBANON then show me something they've done in LEBANON.

Talking about things done in the West Bank shows that you can't.

Hezbollah and Lebanon are two DIFFERENT things, Hezbollah is NOT Lebanon and vice versa. Hezbollah is NOT supported by the Lebanese government, although they do have a stranglehold on it.


You realize you just said that the government which Hezbollah controls does not support Hezbollah?

ABout Hezbollah and Lebanon, one thing people must realize...

Hezbollah and Lebanon are two DIFFERENT things, Hezbollah is NOT Lebanon and vice versa. Hezbollah is NOT supported by the Lebanese government, although they do have a stranglehold on it.

The GRAND majority of Maronite Lebanese(Half the population, not exactly but about 45% so close enough) are anti-Hezbollah, hell many Maronites WANT Israel to move in on the ground and kick Hezbollah out. Granted, manny of the Shia in Lebanon support Hezbollah, the majority of Lebanese are not pro-Hezbollah.

The only problem is, Lebanon has no where near the strength it needs to kick Hezbollah out, for all intents and purposes, Syria is still controlling the nation although its control has lessened a lot from a year ago. People still can not speak out against Hezbollah, unless they wish to face severe reprisals. Lebanon is, and has been for 20 odd years, the battleground for Syria, Iran, Israel and other major Middle East players and Lebanon doesn't have the strength to do a thing about it.

Now that I totally agree with. Southern lebanon is more or less still controlled by Syria since the Lebanese Gov't isnt strong enough yet to totally take charge.

I am sorry, but I think 92 lives being ended is significant. Israel is not just targeting Beirut, it has targeted areas across Lebanese territory.



All of which are valid military targets.

Civilians who die as a result of strikes on militarily strategic targets is not collective punishment. It is civilians dying because they were close to militarily strategic targets.

That's war.

Now that I totally agree with. Southern lebanon is more or less still controlled by Syria since the Lebanese Gov't isnt strong enough yet to totally take charge.

There's a diference between not being strong enough to not do everything, and chosing to do nothing.

Where were the attempted peace talks? Where was the request for intelligence? where was the public denouncing of the kidnapping? Why wasn't the president of lebanon condemning their actions instead of supporting them?

Lebanon has supported Hezbollah, every step of the way. The government of Lebanon made the choice to support Hezbollah, they made the choice to tie themselves to Hezbollah, they made the choice not to resist Hezbollah intigrating themselves into the Lebanese government, and now they have made the choice to tie the fate of their nation to a terrorist group.

Because it is educational and applicable. :eek:
What you just said is; The post is to long and I am lazy so I won't bother to read it. I'll just criticize the poster. I can see you are going places in life. :(

Yeah... I never denied laziness. And I didn't criticise the poster, merely the post; I asked why I should read it and then he insulted me.

That sarcasm really stings. Sadly, it's a fair point.

Edit: and fine, I'll read it.

2nd edit: so... read it. Lord am I a slow reader. It was educational and insightful though. :)

What the IDF does in Palestine has no baring on what the IDF does in Lebanon. If you wish to claim that right now, at this moment, Israel is conducting illegal acts against LEBANON then show me something they've done in LEBANON.

Talking about things done in the West Bank shows that you can't.

Well lets see, bombing targets in Lebanon, blockading Lebanese Ports, they are firing on a sovergn nation with by definition is illegal.

The United Nations has defined aggression like this:

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.


What is aggression
The UN definition is based on actions not words - a declaration of war doesn't feature in the list. Instead it includes such acts as:

the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State
any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack
any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof
bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State
blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State
attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State
use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of that State, in contravention of that agreement (e.g. overstaying permission for the army of state A to stay on the territory of state B)
the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State
sending by or on behalf of a State armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such seriousness as to amount to the acts listed above
The definition is not exclusive - there can be acts of aggression that aren't included in the list above.

(NB: the wording above is not the exact wording of the UN definition, which can be found in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression.)

So by the UN's own words, the Israelies are commiting acts of aggression against a sovergn state.

All of which are valid military targets.

Civilians who die as a result of strikes on militarily strategic targets is not collective punishment. It is civilians dying because they were close to militarily strategic targets.

That's war.
I am sorry, but it is completely unacceptable. It is not a legitimate war, it is collective punishment. The proportionate response of a kidnapping of 3-4 (I forget how many) Israeli soldiers by a terrorist organisation from Lebanon is not to punish all of the ordinary civlians of that country. Ordinary Lebanese people trying to escape their country because it is being bombed are not the ones responsble for kidnapping the Israeli sodiers, nor are they responsible for firing rockets into Israeli territory. To punish them is completly unreasonable and morally unjustifiable.

This is the base logic of "an eye for an eye" we are seeing, although in the Israeli interpretation it would seem to be "twenty eyes for an eye".

"the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State "

It would appear to me that the initial act of aggression was Lebanon's

It's not just Israel.
It's all their neighbours as well.
They need to calm the fuck down with their religious bullshit.

You realize you just said that the government which Hezbollah controls does not support Hezbollah?

Hezbollah DOES NOT control the Lebanese government, but it does have enough of a stranglehold to prevent serious action against Hezbollah, especially considering the Syrian influence.


20 years ago Lebanon was called teh Switzerland of the Middle East. It was a nation that could have been in Western Europe, a democratic, western leaning, even Christain country(half of the population is Maronite Catholic, of which I am a member) before it got wracked by war. After 20 odd years of fighting Lebanon has finally started rebuilding, and has done an amazing job. There are books showing before and after pictures of Beruit and it is amazing the transformation. Going into downtown Beruit you might as well be in a western city, at least before. Clubs, casino's te people dress western, even many of the Shia do. People say American women show skin, go to Lebanon and look at those Maronite girls. Lebanon is an extremely moderate country. And trust me, Lebanon does not want war, anything but, Lebanon just wants its chance at peace, its chance to return to its former life as the Switzerland of the Middle East when it shined.

How many times can you ask the Lebanese people to rebuild there nation? Israel for this, they have EVERY right to kick the shit out of Hezbollah(This is coming from a Lebanese) but it is a shame that Lebanon is being used as the Middle East's battleground when Lebanon has done nothing to deserve this except be weak militarily.

I am sorry, but it is completely unacceptable. It is not a legitimate war, it is collective punishment. The proportionate response of a kidnapping of 3-4 (I forget how many) Israeli soldiers by a terrorist organisation from Lebanon is not to punish all of the ordinary civlians of that country. Ordinary Lebanese people trying to escape their country because it is being bombed are not the ones responsble for kidnapping the Israeli sodiers, nor are they responsible for firing rockets into Israeli territory. To punish them is completly unreasonable and morally unjustifiable.

This is the base logic of "an eye for an eye" we are seeing, although in the Israeli interpretation it would seem to be "twenty eyes for an eye".

The people may not be responsible, but their government is culpable.

The GOVERNMENT has an obligation to protect its citizens. It failed. Name ONE WAR, just one, where civilians did not die. JUST ONE. You can't, because it's impossible. Are the innocent people of Lebanon at fault? No, by definition innocent people are never at fault.

But in war innocent people will die, unless you can show me examples when they haven't.

If you define this as collective punishment then EVERY SINGLE WAR in the history of the world has been collective punishment, simply because the actions for a government lead to the death of innocents. And that's a bullshit definition.

Hindsight is wonderful thing. Israel is there now though and theres no going back. What needs to end is the occupation of the territories.

Israel did end it's occupation of Southern Lebanon and they did pull out of the Gaza strip. It didn't do them any good.

"the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State "

It would appear to me that the initial act of aggression was Lebanon's


No, the Lebanese Government did not authorize the kidnapping of the soldiers. Hezbollah were acting on there own. The Legal government had nothing to do with it.

The majority of the Middle East has always been a violent region, dating back to the beginning of civilization. Read history books, or the bible. Remember the Assyrians? They were one of the most violent civilizations ever, portraying war in their art work. That is just one example of ancient violence long before muslims came along. There are probably many factors for this. Hot climate and a lack of arable land. The fact that people in general can get extremely violent if provoked enough. Now there is oil thrown into the picture, and how every modern person needs it, gives rogue nations such as Iran much more influence. Not to mention blunders by the west, no matter how well or poorly intentioned they may be. The Middle East has always been a volatile region, due to the fact that it is a crossroads of civilizations, where east meets west. Naturally, people tend to hate others that are much different than them, but not always. It sucks that it has to be this way, but it is what it is. In this conflict, as in many others, there is nobody who can be free from blame. It is absolutely unacceptable for what each side is doing to one another in this war.
It shocked me to learn of how this conflict broke out so quickly, it is disturbing. It will take years for this to end, at the cost of the world economy, and my stock portfolio. However, the worst thing is the humanitarian cost that this brings to all sides. Middle East, the violence will always be among you. There will never be any quick fixes to peace in the Middle East. Now, I am not saying that the Middle East is the only place that is as violent as this, but it was probably one of the first violent areas. Other violent regions include the Balkans, Sub-Saharan Africa (which is really pathetic, their human development has plummeted there, while the Middle East continues to make some progress among all this violence, as they have in ancient times), Southern Asia, and other places where cultures tend to clash.

Israel for this, they have EVERY right to kick the shit out of Hezbollah(This is coming from a Lebanese) but it is a shame that Lebanon is being used as the Middle East's battleground when Lebanon has done nothing to deserve this except be weak militarily.

Good, we've admitted that.

Now let me ask you, how is Israel supposed to defeat Hezbollah without destroying their base of operations and cutting their supply lines?

No, the Lebanese Government did not authorize the kidnapping of the soldiers. Hezbollah were acting on there own. The Legal government had nothing to do with it.

The Lebanese Government is culpable for the acts of Hezbollah on the simply logic that they supported and aided Hezbollah in their activities against Israel. That makes them responsibile for everything Hezbollah does.

If they didn't want to be responsibile for Hezbollah, then the government should have distanced itself from their militant operations instead of publically supporting them.

Unless for some reason you think that you can give support to a terrorist group, and not somehow be responsible for what that terrorist group does.

The people may not be responsible, but their government is culpable.

The GOVERNMENT has an obligation to protect its citizens. It failed. Name ONE WAR, just one, where civilians did not die. JUST ONE. You can't, because it's impossible. Are the innocent people of Lebanon at fault? No, by definition innocent people are never at fault.

But in war innocent people will die, unless you can show me examples when they haven't.

If you define this as collective punishment then EVERY SINGLE WAR in the history of the world has been collective punishment, simply because the actions for a government lead to the death of innocents. And that's a bullshit definition.

That simply isn't correct. Of course, you can read my previous posts via search and realise I am very anti-war and against violence in all but the most necessary situations... this is not a justifiable war. Lebanon has not attacked Israel, and yet Israel has destroyed innocent Lebanese lives and many important parts of Lebanon's infrastructure with the full economic effects on the wider people that this will have.

This action, if anything, will just lead to more support for Hezbollah in the Lebanese population as the attack against Lebanon solidifies feelings of anger towards Israel for their actions. This in turn will lead to the loss of more lives on both sides. It's a vicious circle, as I said, Israel's disproportionate actions have just made the cycle of violence even harder to get out of.

There's a diference between not being strong enough to not do everything, and chosing to do nothing.

Where were the attempted peace talks? Where was the request for intelligence? where was the public denouncing of the kidnapping? Why wasn't the president of lebanon condemning their actions instead of supporting them?

Lebanon has supported Hezbollah, every step of the way. The government of Lebanon made the choice to support Hezbollah, they made the choice to tie themselves to Hezbollah, they made the choice not to resist Hezbollah intigrating themselves into the Lebanese government, and now they have made the choice to tie the fate of their nation to a terrorist group.

Umm, maybe because the President of Lebanon enjoys his life. Go look into the lives of every major Lebanese politician who has spoken out against Syria and Hezbollah and see how long they lived before a car bomb snuffed their lives out prematurely.

Don't pull thigns out of your ass, Lebanon hasn't supported Hezbollah, I am Lebanese, I have dozens of family members and friends in Lebanon right now including many in Beruit. Almsot everyone I have talked to so far has said they hope for Israel to commit troops and finish off Hezbollah.

As for the public, do you know how many lebanese are in Syrian jails? or have spent time in Syrian jail cells for demonstrating and speaking out? How many more have been punished in other ways? I for one have two cousins who have spent time in Syrian jails for demonstrating, there is a reason why the Lebanese people who are against Syria and Hezbollah do not rise up and speak out. Would you rise up and speak out against an organization with according to Israel 13,000 rockets, hundreds of heavily armed fighters, with support from a nation 3 times your size right next door?

The Lebanese Government is culpable for the acts of Hezbollah on the simply logic that they supported and aided Hezbollah in their activities against Israel. That makes them responsibile for everything Hezbollah does.

If they didn't want to be responsibile for Hezbollah, then the government should have distanced itself from their militant operations instead of publically supporting them.

Unless for some reason you think that you can give support to a terrorist group, and not somehow be responsible for what that terrorist group does.

let me ask you this then, can Israel do no wrong? I mean is everything they do justifyed no matter what?

Lebanon has not attacked Israel

Yet their government fully supported and aided the organization that did. In my eyes that's the same thing.

let me ask you this then, can Israel do no wrong? I mean is everything they do justifyed no matter what?

Of COURSE not.

If israel bombed the city indiscriminantly and without warning and killed civilians for no reason, that would be wrong.

If Israel invaded without provocation, that would be wrong.

If Israel maintains this blockade long enough for famine to set in, that would be wrong.

If Israel sends a tank line in to cut a swath north, that would be wrong.

Hitting the base of operations of your enemy, and killing no one, and attacking targets of strategic military importance which, regretably, but necessarily, results in civilian death? That's not wrong.

In short, anything that basically involves killing civilians, just for the hell of killing civilians, that is wrong, no matter WHO does it. But israel hasn't done it here. They've attacked areas of military importance which resulted in the death of innocent civilians.

The line between war and terrorism is intent. You hit targets of military value that ultimitly results in the tragic death of civilians? War.

You hit civilians in order to kill civilians? Terrorism, no matter who does it. And I am not above saying Israel would be terrorists if they did this. I just dont see that they did it here.

Yet their government fully supported and aided the organization that did. In my eyes that's the same thing.

Well by that logic than any nation that has supported a terrorist grounp and its all about who defines what a terrorist group is, can be attacked and they deserve it. So the British could have attacked Dublin for the IRA, the Sudanese govt can be attacked for the stuff in Darfur, Iran can be attacked beacuse of Hezbollah as can Syria, the Palesinians are fair game because of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Why dont we jsut nuke em and be done with it?

Good, we've admitted that.

Now let me ask you, how is Israel supposed to defeat Hezbollah without destroying their base of operations and cutting their supply lines?

First off, I haven't said a thing against the Israeli bombings so don't act up on me.

And second off, in that case, why isn't Israel hitting Syria? Hezbollah's true backer, and where the supply lines actually run through, and in many cases originate?? Like I said before, I personally hope Israel does move in troops and clears up Lebanon as does most of my family who I have talked to these past few days. But what we all wish Israel would do even more, is clean up Syria, and if Israel really wants some Arab friends, maybe free Lebanon from Syria's grip.

Yet their government fully supported and aided the organization that did. In my eyes that's the same thing.
Simply untrue. But even if it were the case, I still don't see how that justifies the collective punishment of ordinary Lebanese.

It's more or less exactly the same logic that the Palestinian terrorists use. They believe because Israel is occupying illegally their territories they should have the right to murder innocent ordinary Israeli people in terror attacks.

This way of thinking is simply wrong.

92 Lebanese people have died in the Israeli attacks.

One of the attacks killed 18 fleeing Lebanon, of those 9 were children.

I don't call that reasonable restraint or a proportionate response.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=559553&previousRenderType=6
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5183870.stm

It is called collateral damage and unfortunately cannot be avoided in war.

Now, how many innocent civilians have died because Hezbollah has lobbed missiles into Israel? How many innocent civilians have died because of Hezbollah suicide bombers in the past? Why do you decry Israel's actions but not the actions of Hezbollah?

Well by that logic than any nation that has supported a terrorist grounp and its all about who defines what a terrorist group is, can be attacked and they deserve it.

Provided those attacks are against strategic military areas, and not done for the purpose of killing innocent civilians...then yes, they do.

If a nation supports terrorism that nation deserves to be attacked by the nation that those terrorists operated against, provided those attacks are narrowly tailored to attack key areas of military importance and not designed for the malicious slaughter of innocent life.

ANY NATION that supports terrorism deserves to be attacked.

The Israelis do not want to wipe out the Palestinian population. They have the abiltiy to do so at any time, but they don't. When they strike terrorists, they try to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately they still occur. That is the reality of war. The Palestinians on the other hand don't recognize Israel. Hamas, which got 74% of the Palestinian vote, doesn't recognize Israel in its charter. It in fact calls for the destruction of the Jews.

From the Hamas Charter itself:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Article Thirty-One: The Members of Other Religions

The Hamas is a Humane Movement

Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect. “They will not fight you in body safe in fortified villages or from behind wells. Their adversity among themselves is very great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a folk who have no sense.” Sura 59 (al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 14 Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts aggression against the rights of others. The Nazi Zionist practices against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for “states built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon justice will last until the hour of Resurrection.” “Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.” Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana), verse 8.

Jews and Muslims got along just fine until Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husayni rose up, as you said. This is compatible with Hamas' statement that members of the three religions can coexist.

Article 31 of the Hamas Charter also implies that Hamas has absolutely no desire to "push the Jews into the sea" or "drink the blood of the Jews."

74% of the Palestinians voted for an organization that clearly rejects "wiping the Jews off the map" or any of the other hateful slanders perpetrated against the Islamic Palestinians.

Provided those attacks are against strategic military areas, and not done for the purpose of killing innocent civilians...then yes, they do.

If a nation supports terrorism that nation deserves to be attacked by the nation that those terrorists operated against, provided those attacks are narrowly tailored to attack key areas of military importance and not designed for the malicious slaughter of innocent life.

ANY NATION that supports terrorism deserves to be attacked.

So do you mind reminding me why Israel isn't bombing Syria as well? The nation which is actually backing Hezbollah, a fact you can not deny.

Simply untrue. But even if it were the case, I still don't see how that justifies the collective punishment of ordinary Lebanese.

It's more or less exactly the same logic that the Palestinian terrorists use. They believe because Israel is occupying illegally their territories they should have the right to murder innocent ordinary Israeli people in terror attacks.

This way of thinking is simply wrong.

Show me one example in this conflict where Israel has targeted innocent civilians for the purpose of targetting innocent civilians.

You can't, because it hasn't happened.

Said it before, so please listen this time.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks on areas of MILITARY IMPORTANCE are collatoral damage, unfornate, but the nature of the beast.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks carried out for the purpose of KILLING CIVILIANS is terrorism. Or "collective punishment". Call it what you will.

Lobbing missles into villages across the border into villages is terrorism. Strapping bombs to 14 year old girls and putting them on a schoolbus is terrorism. Bombing an airport which is supplying your enemy and having civilians unfortunatly die as a result, is war.

No civilians have died as a result of Israel wanting to kill civilans. They have died as a result of collatoral damage. But that's war.

So do you mind reminding me why Israel isn't bombing Syria as well? The nation which is actually backing Hezbollah, a fact you can not deny.

Frankly? I wish they would. However I refuse to say it's wrong to attack nation A, because they should be attacking A AND B

So what do you tell the Arabs? "sorry we fucked you over, deal with it, but dont attack the source of much of your problems and pain"? That doesnt really make sense. As long as Israel continues to terrorize others there will be justification to terrorize it.
what problems has israel directly caused other than the fact that it exists?
it is too bad that they dont like them for who they are.

Frankly? I wish they would. However I refuse to say it's wrong to attack nation A, because they should be attacking A AND B

I wish they would.

And again, as I told you before, I have not said a thing against Israel's actions in Lebanon, and if You've read my posts I did clearly state that I hoped they moved in ground troops.

what problems has israel directly caused other than the fact that it exists?
it is too bad that they dont like them for who they are.

Its is a bit more complicated than that to say the least.

Its is a bit more complicated than that to say the least.
then enlighten me...

Show me one example in this conflict where Israel has targeted innocent civilians for the purpose of targetting innocent civilians.

You can't, because it hasn't happened.

Said it before, so please listen this time.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks on areas of MILITARY IMPORTANCE are collatoral damage, unfornate, but the nature of the beast.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks carried out for the purpose of KILLING CIVILIANS is terrorism. Or "collective punishment". Call it what you will.

Lobbing missles into villages across the border into villages is terrorism. Strapping bombs to 14 year old girls and putting them on a schoolbus is terrorism. Bombing an airport which is supplying your enemy and having civilians unfortunatly die as a result, is war.

No civilians have died as a result of Israel wanting to kill civilans. They have died as a result of collatoral damage. But that's war.

I would find it incredibly difficult to call the bombing of a convoy of civilians, including children, trying to flee Lebanon a 'military target'.

I find it hard to understand how bombing of a harbour that was tomorrow due to be used by the French and American authorities to evacuate their citizens as a military target.

I find it hard to understand how Jiye power station can be considered a military target.

Also, the idea that Beirut airport was being used to supply Hezbollah is ludicrous. This was a modern civilian airport in the capital city with all the security that has to accompany such a airport in this day, it's far from the Hezbollah controlled south.

This is nothing more than collective punishment, it's not war. It's morally no better than the terrorism it seeks to stop.

I'm going to say that this here is flamebait.you forgot to say Nazi/Hitler/Holowcast-denier/anti-semite/etc.

[/sarcasmorama]

Show me one example in this conflict where Israel has targeted innocent civilians for the purpose of targetting innocent civilians.

You can't, because it hasn't happened.

Said it before, so please listen this time.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks on areas of MILITARY IMPORTANCE are collatoral damage, unfornate, but the nature of the beast.

Civilians dying as a result of attacks carried out for the purpose of KILLING CIVILIANS is terrorism. Or "collective punishment". Call it what you will.

Lobbing missles into villages across the border into villages is terrorism. Strapping bombs to 14 year old girls and putting them on a schoolbus is terrorism. Bombing an airport which is supplying your enemy and having civilians unfortunatly die as a result, is war.

No civilians have died as a result of Israel wanting to kill civilans. They have died as a result of collatoral damage. But that's war.


Your right, but I would like to point out the Jews that founded Israel started terrorism long before any Arab conducted terrorist acts. Go look up the Irgun and Stern gang for starters. Jews in israel started taking hostages like Hezbollah did 60 years ago, and treated them pretty bad(A couple documented cases of Jews actually castrating hostages, hanging them and booby trapping the bodies exc.)

Just playing a little devils advocate, but Israel is just as guilty of terrorism as the Arabs, if anybody taught the Arabs terrorism it was the Jews, the Arabs just took it to another level with suicide bombers.

In case my position isn't clear, let me spell it out plainly.

Any nation, and I don't care which one it is, any nation that supports terrorism deserves to be attacked provided those attacks are aimed at militarily strategic areas and are not designed for the purpose of targeting and killing civilians.

Every nation has the right to defend itself, and that includes attacking terrorists, and nations that support terrorists. However I will NOT support the killing of innocent civilians for the purpose of killing innocent civilians. That is the definition of terrorism.

Collatoral damage, wile tragic, is expected and unavoidable. I will not state that Israel was wrong in their actions, nor will I decry the death of innocent Lebanese who, though tragic, died in legitimate, strategic strikes.

The minute Israel turns on civilians and starts killing them directly is the minute I withdraw support for those actions. But I haven't seen it here.

Your right, but I would like to point out the Jews that founded Israel started terrorism long before any Arab conducted terrorist acts. Go look up the Irgun and Stern gang for starters. Jews in israel started taking hostages like Hezbollah did 60 years ago, and treated them pretty bad(A couple documented cases of Jews actually castrating hostages, hanging them and booby trapping the bodies exc.)

Just playing a little devils advocate, but Israel is just as guilty of terrorism as the Arabs, if anybody taught the Arabs terrorism it was the Jews, the Arabs just took it to another level with suicide bombers.

I have no particular disagreement with that. I will not argue that what a lot of pre Israel zionists did would fit into the definition of terrorist acts.

However, terrorism is NEVER legitimate, even if begat by terrorism. What was done by the pre Israel zionists was deplorable, however nothing, not even terrorism, excuses terrorism.

Well lets see, bombing targets in Lebanon, blockading Lebanese Ports, they are firing on a sovergn nation with by definition is illegal.

So, the US invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal?

SCENARIO

I'd like you to think for a moment that northern Mexico had beome a "state within a state," an autonomous portion of Mexico run by terrorists. Despite years of negotiation, Mexico refuses to do anything about it. Their government is weak and very much hates the United States. Now, let's say that this terrorist northern Mexico builds a tunnel under the Rio Grande that surfaces inside a U.S. military base in Texas. An exploive is detonated, gunmen spring forth, killing several U.S. soldiers, and kinapping several others. They scurry the hostages back to northern Mexico with the intention of transporting them to North Korea, where there's nothing the United States can do. They also demand the release of all Mexican-American prisoners. Then, they fire a rocket into San Diego, and scores of others into California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Waht do you think the United States would do? I can guarentee you they would have invaded northern Mexico, bombed Mexico City (to get the Mexican government to finally do something about the terrorist state they have allowed to exist in the North, and bombed or destroyed all routes by which the terrorists could transport the hostages out of the country. So tell me, would they have been 100 times harsher or 1,000 times harsher?

I have no particular disagreement with that. I will not argue that what a lot of pre Israel zionists did would fit into the definition of terrorist acts.

However, terrorism is NEVER legitimate, even if begat by terrorism. What was done by the pre Israel zionists was deplorable, however nothing, not even terrorism, excuses terrorism.


That is something I can agree with easily.

Any nation, and I don't care which one it is, any nation that supports terrorism deserves to be attacked..Any? really?
Where are you from?

SCENARIO

I'd like you to think for a moment that northern Mexico had beome a "state within a state," an autonomous portion of Mexico run by terrorists. Despite years of negotiation, Mexico refuses to do anything about it. Their government is weak and very much hates the United States. Now, let's say that this terrorist northern Mexico builds a tunnel under the Rio Grande that surfaces inside a U.S. military base in Texas. An exploive is detonated, gunmen spring forth, killing several U.S. soldiers, and kinapping several others. They scurry the hostages back to northern Mexico with the intention of transporting them to North Korea, where there's nothing the United States can do. They also demand the release of all Mexican-American prisoners. Then, they fire a rocket into San Diego, and scores of others into California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Waht do you think the United States would do? I can guarentee you they would have invaded northern Mexico, bombed Mexico City (to get the Mexican government to finally do something about the terrorist state they have allowed to exist in the North, and bombed or destroyed all routes by which the terrorists could transport the hostages out of the country. So tell me, would they have been 100 times harsher or 1,000 times harsher?

This is a rather accurate and quite eloquent hypothetical that demonstrates the problem.

Lebanon supports a terrorist organization. And I don't want to hear "they can't do anything about it!" They are in the government, they are in the cabinet, the president got on national television and declared his support.

Lebanon supports terrorism. And for that they deserve to be attacked provided those attacks are conducted in proper military fashion and are not designed to kill civilians.

And lets not mince words here, if Israel wanted to kill civilians, there'd be a WHOLE lot more dead right now than 100. When they bombed Beirut the distributed leaflets, warned the population to evacuate, and conducted surgical strikes that killed NO ONE.

if they wanted to kill civilians, they could have dropped a few fuel air bombs without warning, leveled the block, and killed THOUSANDS.

Any? really?
Where are you from?

New York, why?

Terrorism advocates the slaughter of innocent life for the purpose of slaughtering innocent life. Any nation that supports that and does not activly seek to scurge that from their borders is complicant in their acts and bears the responsibility for those actions, provided again, that counter attacks are done in a uniform military way.

They are firing on a sovergn nation with by definition is illegal.

Not when that sovrein nation committed an act of war. Incidentally, if you have a government-permitted autonomous state (such as Catalonia in Spain), if that state attacks another country, then whether or not you gave that state permission, you have just declared war on whoever it was your state attacked. If Catalonia attacked France (even without the approval of the Spanish government), then France and Spain are at war, and any retalitory strike Frace choses to commit is legal by international law.

This is a rather accurate and quite eloquent hypothetical that demonstrates the problem.

Lebanon supports a terrorist organization. And I don't want to hear "they can't do anything about it!" They are in the government, they are in the cabinet, the president got on national television and declared his support.

Lebanon supports terrorism. And for that they deserve to be attacked provided those attacks are conducted in proper military fashion and are not designed to kill civilians.

And lets not mince words here, if Israel wanted to kill civilians, there'd be a WHOLE lot more dead right now than 100. When they bombed Beirut the distributed leaflets, warned the population to evacuate, and conducted surgical strikes that killed NO ONE.

if they wanted to kill civilians, they could have dropped a few fuel air bombs without warning, leveled the block, and killed THOUSANDS.


Umm...I don't think you have listened to a word I've said.

Lebanon does not support Hezbollah, even Israel has said that Lebanon doesn't support Hezbollah, no offense, but by now I have to tell you get your head out of your ass. Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran, not Lebanon, a fact even Israel has proclaimed.

The Lebanese president did not support Hezbollah, he just didn't denounce Hezbollah, and rightfully so, cause if he did, he would be dead by the end of the week. Go look up the lifespans of all the Lebanese politicians who have spoken against Hezbollah and Syria, and notice that they all managed to somehow get blown up, hell there were Syrian car bombs in Beruit killing politicians just a few months ago if you remember.

As far as killing no one, they have killed plenty of people, but that is the sad fact of war, people die as regrettable as it is.

]and any retalitory strike Frace choses to commit is legal by international law.

Vaguely incorrect.

Any retaliatory strikes Frances choses to commit provided it was not done for the purpose of killing innocent civilians, is legal by international law.

Israel hasn't done that, so their actions are perfectly legal.

Not when that sovrein nation committed an act of war. Incidentally, if you have a government-permitted autonomous state (such as Catalonia in Spain), if that state attacks another country, then whether or not you gave that state permission, you have just declared war on whoever it was your state attacked. If Catalonia attacked France (even without the approval of the Spanish government), then France and Spain are at war, and any retalitory strike Frace choses to commit is legal by international law.


So,...who exactly would be Spain and Catalonia in your so eloquent example above? Cause Hezbollah is in no way a "government-permitted autonomous state".

But what we all wish Israel would do even more, is clean up Syria, and if Israel really wants some Arab friends, maybe free Lebanon from Syria's grip.

They may do just that before this is all over.

This is a rather accurate and quite eloquent hypothetical that demonstrates the problem.

Lebanon supports a terrorist organization. And I don't want to hear "they can't do anything about it!" They are in the government, they are in the cabinet, the president got on national television and declared his support.

Lebanon supports terrorism. And for that they deserve to be attacked provided those attacks are conducted in proper military fashion and are not designed to kill civilians.

And lets not mince words here, if Israel wanted to kill civilians, there'd be a WHOLE lot more dead right now than 100. When they bombed Beirut the distributed leaflets, warned the population to evacuate, and conducted surgical strikes that killed NO ONE.

if they wanted to kill civilians, they could have dropped a few fuel air bombs without warning, leveled the block, and killed THOUSANDS.


Very true.

The Lebanese president did not support Hezbollah, he just didn't denounce Hezbollah,

I am sorry but on that you are wrong.

The President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud, said: "For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement."

I'd call that pretty solid support. And Lahoud is, by the way, the current Preisdent of Lebanon and still in power today. This wasn't a former leader talking.

That quote was also taken in 2003, 3 years AFTER the occupation ended and Hezbollah was instructed by the UN to disarm.

As far as killing no one, they have killed plenty of people, but that is the sad fact of war, people die as regrettable as it is.

Nobody has actually died in the bombing of Beirut. Other places yes, but not Beirut, which is what I was refering to.

Any retaliatory strikes Frances choses to commit provided it was not done for the purpose of killing innocent civilians, is legal by international law.

Israel hasn't done that, so their actions are perfectly legal.

Right. That was actually what I meant; I didn't realize it was ambiguous. Thank you for the clarification, though.

I am sorry but on that you are wrong.

The President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud, said: "For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement."



Nobody has actually died in the bombing of Beirut. Other places yes, but not Beirut, which is what I was refering to.

As for the bombings, I'm not sure where the casualties were so I can't comment on that.

As for hezbollah, the president is right, the actions of Hezbollah and otehr organizations were influencial in ending the Israeli(But not the Syrian) occupation of Lebanon.

Note he never said he supported Hezbollah in that speech, don't know where you got that, holding someone in esteem and supporting them are to different things, especially when the last president that didn't hold Hezbollah and the Syrians in esteem had his car blown up while he was inside.

So,...who exactly would be Spain and Catalonia in your so eloquent example above? Cause Hezbollah is in no way a "government-permitted autonomous state".


Really?

President Lahoud has such high esteem for Hezbollah, he's ceded control of the border with Israel to them -- a border where Hezbollah and Israeli soldiers now confront each other just a few yards apart.

Seems to me the government willingly handed control of the area over to them.

What else would you call it?

Look up Rafik Hariri, he is only one of many who were killed for not holding the Syrians in "esteem"

As for the bombings, I'm not sure where the casualties were so I can't comment on that.

As for hezbollah, the president is right, the actions of Hezbollah and otehr organizations were influencial in ending the Israeli(But not the Syrian) occupation of Lebanon.

Note he never said he supported Hezbollah in that speech, don't know where you got that, holding someone in esteem and supporting them are to different things, especially when the last president that didn't hold Hezbollah and the Syrians in esteem had his car blown up while he was inside.

We hold you in esteem = we like you

We like you = we support (at least morally) your actions.

I think you're mixing semantics here. The preisdent publically declared he, and the majority of Lebanon, likes Hezbollah.

Really?



Seems to me the government willingly handed control of the area over to them.

What else would you call it?

Where did you get that qoute from?

Also, I would like topoint out Lahoud was basically apointed by Syria. Syria revised Lebanons constitution in 1998 to have in put in power and again in 2004 to keep him their, and both times a lot of Lebanese bitched, and a lot of them suffered for it. Lahoud is a Syrian puppet.

Because it is educational and applicable.

Its factually incorrect, to the point where it actually is offensive in places. It is not educational, it merely perpetuates ignorance and stereotypes. I shudder to think if thats whats in Israeli textbooks, at any level in the school system.

We hold you in esteem = we like you

We like you = we support (at least morally) your actions.

I think you're mixing semantics here. The preisdent publically declared he, and the majority of Lebanon, likes Hezbollah.


Well, as someone who actually is Lebanese, I can pretty accurately tell you the majority of Lebanon doesn't like Hezbollah, I don't know where you are getting your facts from....

Where did you get that qoute from?

Also, I would like topoint out Lahoud was basically apointed by Syria. Syria revised Lebanons constitution in 1998 to have in put in power and again in 2004 to keep him their, and both times a lot of Lebanese bitched, and a lot of them suffered for it. Lahoud is a Syrian puppet.

Oh he is absolutly. But he's still the head of state. So to say that the head of state is a puppet still doesn't nullify his actions.

BTW, source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550000.shtml

CBS news.

I would find it incredibly difficult to call the bombing of a convoy of civilians, including children, trying to flee Lebanon a 'military target'.

The convoy of civilians was not the target. The roads and the bridges were because they can be used to move supplies. Unfortunatly, the civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I find it hard to understand how bombing of a harbour that was tomorrow due to be used by the French and American authorities to evacuate their citizens as a military target.

Harbors have ports and ports are used to unload supplies, like misiles and weapons.

I find it hard to understand how Jiye power station can be considered a military target.

Power stations have always been militry targets.

Also, the idea that Beirut airport was being used to supply Hezbollah is ludicrous. This was a modern civilian airport in the capital city with all the security that has to accompany such a airport in this day, it's far from the Hezbollah controlled south.

Again, a quick way to move in supplies is by air. Check out the cargo operations at any international airport. Also, by taking out the airport it prevents any other foreign military from bringing military aircraft.

This is nothing more than collective punishment, it's not war. It's morally no better than the terrorism it seeks to stop.

Hog kakapoopoo.

Well, as someone who actually is Lebanese, I can pretty accurately tell you the majority of Lebanon doesn't like Hezbollah, I don't know where you are getting your facts from....

Well again we're mixing "people" with "government".

I have no doubt the PEOPLE don't. But the GOVERNMENT has. I'm not saying he's RIGHT, only that he SAID it.

New York, why?New York? So you deserve to do be attacked.

Jews have been through too much, for over 3 milleniums, they have been tortured, burned, starved, enslaved, impaled, and have gone through the inquisition more than anyone. And you're telling them, that they don't have a right to exist?

Even without thinking about their past, what do you think about france? Should have we let them have their country back? Or Belgium? The Netherlands? Germany? Italy? Moracco? Algeria? Tunisia? Denmark? Finland? Estonia? Poland? East Germany? Bulgaria? Slovenia? Slovakia? Etc.

So shut your bitchin, I stand by Israel, and I don't even give a shit if they decide to conquer the whole middle east.

New York? So you deserve to do be attacked.

um...the fuck?

As a civilian I never "deserve" to be attacked. Doing so would be terrorism. However if I happen to be standing on a military target during a time of war and a bomb aimed for that military target happens to land on my head, then my death would be, in international standards, acceptable collatoral damage.

um...the fuck?
I let you connect the dots...


Any nation, and I don't care which one it is, any nation that supports terrorism deserves to be attacked..

There are two points in my opinion that should not even be up for dicussion:
1. The right of Israel to exist
2. The right of a free Palestinian state to exist
And this has been clearly understood from both sides, Israel and Palestine.
The problem is that the day an agreement is reached, both Syria and Iran will loose influence in the region and definetely they do not want that to happen.
Much more than the classical Palestinian-Israeli conflict, what we have today is an attempt by Syria and Iran to destabilize the region (via Hezbollah and to a certain extent via Hamas as well).
As long as the International Community will not address this question of Syria and Iran, I don´t see many chances for the Middle East to live in peace.

Jews have been through too much, for over 3 milleniums, they have been tortured, burned, starved, enslaved, impaled, and have gone through the inquisition more than anyone. And you're telling them, that they don't have a right to exist?

Even without thinking about their past, what do you think about france? Should have we let them have their country back? Or Belgium? The Netherlands? Germany? Italy? Moracco? Algeria? Tunisia? Denmark? Finland? Estonia? Poland? East Germany? Bulgaria? Slovenia? Slovakia? Etc.

So shut your bitchin, I stand by Israel, and I don't even give a shit if they decide to conquer the whole middle east.

Ya and the Arabs of course don't deserve nations of their own....not a hypocrite or anything...

And, if you've read any of the last oo...4 or so pages, you would notice most of it has agreed that Israel has every right to bomb Hezbollah, most of the argument is centered on Lebanese issues such as if Lebanons government is guilty, Syrian involvement exc. Not whether or not Israel deserves to exist so I don't know what your getting at??

Isreal is in the wrong spot, the muslims are hateful people, there going to be attacked, because of there religion, how long has this war of religion been fought in the middle east, many years, we cant stop there religion wich is the main cause, we put Isreal there, we cant get them out, and its hard to move an entire counrty. I have no Idea how to fix it.:confused:

people dont get pissed at me im only 12:)

I let you connect the dots...

I suggest you quote my entire statement first, but just in case you can't get that far without being distracted by your obvious ADD, lemme spell it out for you.

A nation that supports terrorism (terrorism defined as expressly attacking civilians for the purpose of killing civilians) deserves to be attacked in proper military fashion (IE the attacking of militarily strategic areas and NOT attacks on civilians).

So if you can show me that the united states as a governmental policy has supported groups that kill civilians for the purpose of killing civilians, and as a result was attacked, and I happend to be standing on a militarily strategic are and was killed as a result?

Then yes, my death would be under appropriate legal standards, acceptable.

However since you can not show that the government of the United States of America supports terrorists groups, nor can you point me towards an attack on a valid militarily strategic target on US soil in the last...oh...60 years or so, I must conclude that you are an idiot.

Isreal is in the wrong spot..exactamente.

I am sorry but on that you are wrong.

I'd call that pretty solid support. And Lahoud is, by the way, the current Preisdent of Lebanon and still in power today. This wasn't a former leader talking.

Here is your proof;

Lebanese president praises Syria, Hezbollah in summit address
By The Associated Press

In a speech sure to exacerbate divisions back home, pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud on Wednesday praised the roles that Syria and the militant Hezbollah guerrilla group play in his country.

Addressing heads of state and ministers on the second day of an Arab League summit in Khartoum, Sudan, Lahoud said he was certain that fellow Arabs supported ongoing national dialogue talks between Lebanon's leaders.

And here is the link; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=700232&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

terrorism defined as ....why the f*ck should we use YOUR definition ?

I agree the Jewish people have a turbulent history of toture, slavery, and bieng taken advantage of, I also agree that the Arab states are hateful:mad: and never pleased, I mean right when Isreal was formed freakin Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan declared war on it. But all that dosent give them the right for all there agression, this war I believe they have the right to defend themselves. I stand by Isreal, but I never liked the hate they returned to the arab people.

people dont get pissed at me im only 12:)


Glad to know you are interested in things like this at that age.

acceptable.

However since you can not show that the government of the United States of America supports terrorists groups, nor can you point me towards an attack on a valid militarily strategic target on US soil in the last...oh...60 years or so, I must conclude that you are an idiot.

The contras? What were they? Wasnt that where the US had to use a veto to stop itself being criticised by the UNSC? And how many of the worst death squads in Latin America had leaders trained in Fort Benning?

why in hell should we use YOUR definition ?

Because you were quoting me you dumbass.

I said any nation that supports terrorism as I define terrorism deserves to be attacked.

How the fuck should I know, or care, what you define it as? My beliefs are based on my definitions. I'm fine defending my beliefs, I feel no obligation to defend yours.

... as I define terrorism...I dont give a shiite how YOU define terrorism.. If I cared I would have quoted that part.

The contras? What were they? Wasnt that where the US had to use a veto to stop itself being criticised by the UNSC? And how many of the worst death squads in Latin America had leaders trained in Fort Benning?


The Iran Contra affair was not officially sanctioned by the US government, as far as we know.

As for the second you must provide me with more specific details, although if I can take a stab at it, I'd say that unless the US has specific reasons to believe how that training will be applied, how the Latin American leaders used their troops is not within the control, influence, nor obligation of the US.

But again I don't know enough about that issue to speak on it definitivly.

Its factually incorrect, to the point where it actually is offensive in places. It is not educational, it merely perpetuates ignorance and stereotypes. I shudder to think if thats whats in Israeli textbooks, at any level in the school system.

Then please point out where it is not factual and "perpetrates ignorance and sterotypes" instead of making a blanket statement. I honestly don't know if his facts are incorrect or not. However, I didn't see anything in his post that promoted ignorance and stereotypes.

...what you define it as? I dont.
I do not define it.
I leave that Job to the Mr Webster. :D :D ;) :D

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism
terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

I dont give a shiite how YOU define terrorism.. If I cared I would have quoted that part.


Then, may I ask, what the fuck is your point?

Define terrorism however the hell you want to, define it as dying bunny rabbits pink for all I care. How you define it is of no basis or relevance to my beliefs or arguments. If you chose to make arguments based on your definitions feel free to do so, however I will continue to use mine as I see fit until I see a reason to change them.

You are a fucking idiot huh?

New York? So you deserve to do be attacked.

Be careful how you answer as this sounds like a http://www.darkam.com/images/troll_chaotique.jpg to me.

I know we have had a lot Israel threads recently, but I want to go in a little direction with this one.

As I have been watching the news lately I hear a lot that the kidnapping of a few IDF it was what started this current situation and that Israel is just using self defence. But that seems really misleading to me, as it deflects blame from the ones who truly started this, Israel. The way their state was formed, taking land from others, is provocative. Creating a Jewish state in the middle of Arab and muslim land was provocative. Seems to me that Israel merely being sets off anger and violence that leaves many dead without cause and that if Israel werent around the world would be a more peaceful place. your thoughts


Your very Premise is wrong. The Jewish people predate the muslim people in that area.

So, the US invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal?

No, the invasion of Afghanistan was legal since Afghanistan was a failed state, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Be careful how you answer as this sounds like a http://www.darkam.com/images/troll_chaotique.jpg to me.Oh my God.. a Troll!! , now I am scared!!

There are two points in my opinion that should not even be up for dicussion:


Good first post. Welcome to NS General. You'll find that life here can get very crazy at times.

the Sudanese govt can be attacked for the stuff in Darfur
A resounding yes. The govt. in Khartoum needs to have its fucking ass kicked.

Jews have been through too much, for over 3 milleniums, they have been tortured, burned, starved, enslaved, impaled, and have gone through the inquisition more than anyone. And you're telling them, that they don't have a right to exist?

Even without thinking about their past, what do you think about france? Should have we let them have their country back? Or Belgium? The Netherlands? Germany? Italy? Moracco? Algeria? Tunisia? Denmark? Finland? Estonia? Poland? East Germany? Bulgaria? Slovenia? Slovakia? Etc.

So shut your bitchin, I stand by Israel, and I don't even give a shit if they decide to conquer the whole middle east.


So because they have been opressed in the past, its ok for them to do the same thing? That is a messed up logic. No peoples deserved to be opressed by anyone.

No, the invasion of Afghanistan was legal since Afghanistan was a failed state, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Actually, as Iraq had repeatedly broken the cease-fire prior to our invasion, Iraq was fair game. Mind you, it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, but the UN and international law are two different things.

Good first post. Welcome to NS General. You'll find that life here can get very crazy at times.

Thank you!
About how crazy it gets, well that is the wonder of freedom of speech.

Then, may I ask, what the fuck is your point?
I dont need to answer.. when you can answer yourself.. all you need to do is look at your own posts (look at the mirrior)

You are a fucking idiot huh?
;)

Thank you!
About how crazy it gets, well that is the wonder of freedom of speech.

And the series of tubes that we call teh internets.

The Iran Contra affair was not officially sanctioned by the US government, as far as we know. .

O for fucks sake....How could Negroponte liason with the Contras when he was an Ambassador if it wasn;t sanctioned by the US govt? Iran-contra was a small part of it - most, as I remember, was approved and above board. The CIA mining the harbours was far more significant that ollie norths hijinks.


As for the second you must provide me with more specific details, although if I can take a stab at it, I'd say that unless the US has specific reasons to believe how that training will be applied, how the Latin American leaders used their troops is not within the control, influence, nor obligation of the US.
.

You can only claim ignorance in the beginning. Seeing as the Gutamalan issue had been going on for 20 odd years before Reagan, and that there was continued reports from the field of massacres and 'excess' they can't claim ignorance there. And how would it be possible to be unaware of Government death squads in El Salvador, particularily when they killed US citizens?


But again I don't know enough about that issue to speak on it definitivly.

Odd, you were fairly definite that the US never supported "terrorists" a few posts ago. I would have presumed that would mean you knew of these events and considered them not to apply. Now you "don't know enough". Perhaps you should have realised that before you made your earlier statement.

I dont need to answer.. when you can answer yourself..

;)

Well, I believe I have answered that then. Your point is that you're a fucking idiot.

Isreal is in the wrong spot, the muslims are hateful people, there going to be attacked, because of there religion, how long has this war of religion been fought in the middle east, many years, we cant stop there religion wich is the main cause, we put Isreal there, we cant get them out, and its hard to move an entire counrty. I have no Idea how to fix it.:confused:

Just because those who are battling Israel happen to be Muslims does NOT make all muslims hateful. That is judging an entire group buy the actions of some. Its like saying all Jews are greedy, or all Christians are intolerant. That type of judging is wrong and leads to intolerant attitudes. I am a Muslim and just want all this bloodshed to stop in the MIddle East and the killing to stop and everyone get along.

Love it!

i love it to

Just because those who are battling Israel happen to be Muslims does NOT make all muslims hateful. That is judging an entire group buy the actions of some. Its like saying all Jews are greedy, or all Christians are intolerant. That type of judging is wrong and leads to intolerant attitudes. I am a Muslim and just want all this bloodshed to stop in the MIddle East and the killing to stop and everyone get along.


well just to show another persons view can u say what u would do to solve the problem if u were Israel.

You are a fucking idiot huh?

He is a troll. I suggest you don't feed him.

Your point is that you're a fucking idiot.My point is that you are answering yourself..
as for who is the fucking idiot between the two of us.. the answer is self evident.. (not even close)

Then please point out where it is not factual and "perpetrates ignorance and sterotypes" instead of making a blanket statement. I honestly don't know if his facts are incorrect or not. However, I didn't see anything in his post that promoted ignorance and stereotypes.

You obviously didn't look very hard, as I've already pointed out his most grevious errors in a previous post.

The comments on Arabs fighting against the ottomans. Totally incorrect and tries to enhance the image of the shifty cowardly Arab. The idea that settlers from outside arrived and all of a sudden made the 'desert a garden' enhances the lazy Arab, the ignorant native so beloved of colonial mythology everywhere, and ignores the actual figures for landownership and agricultural production as they were throughout the period up until the end of the mandate.

Actually, as Iraq had repeatedly broken the cease-fire prior to our invasion, Iraq was fair game. Mind you, it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, but the UN and international law are two different things.

The second Gulf War was illegal, there was no military provacation by Iraq like there was in Gulf I when they invaded Kuwait. In 1992 we had the backing of the world or most of it, in Gulf II we didnt have the backing of the UN and did it on our own as a "pre-emptive" strike by Cowboy Bush.

well just to show another persons view can u say what u would do to solve the problem if u were Israel.

To be honest I am not sure. I think this military action is not helping things tho. I dont know what I would do right now, thats a good question and Ill think on that. Im a International Relations major so this is right down my ally. Can I get back to you on this one?

To be honest I am not sure. I think this military action is not helping things tho. I dont know what I would do right now, thats a good question and Ill think on that. Im a International Relations major so this is right down my ally. Can I get back to you on this one?

sure

No, the invasion of Afghanistan was legal since Afghanistan was a failed state, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with Afghanistan being a "failed state" whatever that is. The invasion was legal because the county harbored a terrorist group that committed an act of war against the US. The invasion of Lebanon is legal because Lebanon harbors terrorists that committed an act of war against Israel.

And the series of tubes that we call teh internets.

And trolls. :eek:

The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with Afghanistan being a "failed state" whatever that is. The invasion was legal because the county harbored a terrorist group that committed an act of war against the US. The invasion of Lebanon is legal because Lebanon harbors terrorists that committed an act of war against Israel.

A failed state is a state or country that has no legitamate goverment and is unable to exert control or provide services to its population. It also has to be able to protect citizens of other countries. The Taliban were not recognized, did not control the whole of Afghanistan, and did not protect civilians of other countries from harm, thus a failed state. One could call Somalia a failed state today.

sure

Ok, I would stop all Military activities and begin and economic embargo and impose econmic sanctions on Lebanon. I would demand from the Lebanese Goverment to return our service men AND disarm Hezbollah. I would call for a UN force to be deployed between Israel and Lebanon. Then I would ask for the world to assist Lebanon in what ever way it need to disarm Hezbollah. That would be how I would begin to scale this stuff down.

Yet by the end of 1947 total land purchased amounted to 400,000 acres, and the majority of businesses and agricultural produce came from and was in Arab hands. Go look it up.
THe land of the JEzreel was owned by the Jews. This land was partitioned to them. People say that most of the land wasn't owned by them. What those people conveniently forget is that most of the unowned land was the inhospitable Negev Desert. No one lived there until Israel built Eilat and irrigated the land. The agriculture did not come from Arabs. No one could farm the JEzreel Valley or Plains of SHaron. The JEzreel was swamp land sold to the JEws by absentee landowners and the Plains of Sharon consisted of eroded land which was far from arable. The Jews drained the swamps of Jezreel and build their Kibbutzim and moshavim on the spot. They planted trees in the plains to anchor the dirt and allow farming on the land.



Total bollocks. Thats utterly, utterly untrue. They did not wait until the defeat of the Ottomans. Where did you get this shite from?
By the time the Arabs joined the effort, the writing was on the wall, and it was clear that the Ottomans would lose.

.

It blamed unemployment, Arab discontent with not acheiving their national aspirations (being shafted by the British), double talk on the part of the administration to both sides, and fears of increased settler immigration, which it limited, with disastrous consequences for those trying to escape Germany.
If it was unemployment, then why did they strike at the Jews? They committed pogroms similar to the ones of the Czar and Kristelnacht. I will admit the Brits deserve some blame, but a Palestinian state was created. 80% of the Palestinian mandate was used to create the formerly non-existant nation of Jordan. The immigration was stopped to appease the Mufti and his people. The Jews were stranded in Europe as a result of actions by the Mufti.


.


The mufti left the area in 1936 and never returned. The British were the ones who slowed immigration to prevent further trouble and as they did so a full 3 years before WWII, and considering it was over half way thru the war when the allies first began to receive concrete reports on the Holocaust, how the fuck could the Palestinians get the blame for that? Get a fucking grip. Yes the Mufti left, but he was still behind the violence which led to the British issuing the White Paper. Without the Mufti, it never occurs. The British knew about the Holocaust as did every other nation. They just ignored the reports. The Palestinians are to blame as it was their leader who helped persuade Hitler to kill the Jews. The Palestinians cooperated with the Nazis, were recruited into the SS, and were responsible for the events leading to the White Paper.






In "The Beginnings of the Palestinian Refugee problem" by Benny Morris, of over 300 villages deserted by Arabs from what is now Israel, only 6 were found to have left due to any Arab 'authority" the vast majority of the rest either left due to Israeli attack or expulsion.


And why is there only a few Bedouin villages recognised, though they predate the founding of the Israeli state, and over 100 settler villages declared "legal"?

Benny Morris is a revisionist historian. I don't trust him. If the Jews really kicked the ARabs out, then why are there over a million Arabs in Israel? There were a few massacres, but they were by the Irgun. The IRgun was condemned by Israel and actually attacked by the Haganah.
.

Between 1948 and 1967.
During this era, the Arabs contolled the "Palestinian" land and didn't grant them a state. THey were occupied by Egypt and Jordan who kept them in that state to take advantage of them.

.

Not in your wildest dreams does it do so. It specifically rules out aqquistion of territrory by conquest.
It allows Israel to take some of the land (strategicly high positions). Israel has to give nearly all of it back, but can keep some areas that are strategically important.

.

The PLO recognise the Israeli state. They wouldnt deal with them though.WTF? They don't recognize Israel. They don't even have it on their maps. Egypt is the only Islamic nation that recognizes Israel.

Forward and to the right of me is my bookshelf where i keep the non-fiction.
On it is Alan Bullock "Hitler and Stalin - Parallel lives", "Hitler" John Toland, "Hitler " in two parts by Ian Kershaw, "Hitlers willing Executioners" Daniel Goldenhagen as well as "Albert Speer - his struggle with truth" gitta Sereny. Why have they no mention of this? Tolands is the oldest with Kershawsonly 3 or 4 years old I think and I don't remember a chapter devoted to the Mufti. Because the man responsible for the holocaust would get a chapter, id say.
YOu read books about Hitler and the Germans or Russians. If you read about the Arab ties to the Nazis you whould see this. THere is no denying that the Mufti was a huge factor in the Holocaust. Do more research.

@IDF:

As your name implies, you are a pro-israeli guy (call it a Zionist, if you want) - and for some reason, most Zionists claim that they are the masters of history and that others are idiots.

Sadly, you - like others of your kind just "twist" history. By twisting I mean that you present Israel as a oppressed country being attacked by brutal Arabs (which you people call "terroists" or "barbarians")

Have you guys forgot the pharse : "Israel's boundaries are from the Euphrat to the Nile" ? That many Zionists use. Their intentions are clear.

Thanks to the Zionist propaganda that rotates the facts of this issue, they made the oppressor look like the oppressed and the oppressed look like the oppressor.

DON'T GET BRAINSWASHED BY ZIONIST PROPAGANDA.
Thanks for your very dumb and idiotic post. You don't refute a single point I make. I never said Israel should have the boundaries you stated. Please STFU unless you have something intelligent to say.

A failed state is a state or country that has no legitamate goverment and is unable to exert control or provide services to its population. It also has to be able to protect citizens of other countries. The Taliban were not recognized, did not control the whole of Afghanistan, and did not protect civilians of other countries from harm, thus a failed state. One could call Somalia a failed state today.

Thanks for clearing that up, but just because they were a failed state doesn't mean the invasion was legal because of that. The invasion was legal because the terrorists they were harboring committed an act of war. Same thing in Lebanon although their government is semi-functioning.

YOu read books about Hitler and the Germans or Russians. If you read about the Arab ties to the Nazis you whould see this. THere is no denying that the Mufti was a huge factor in the Holocaust. Do more research.
You mean besides the fact that hitler held the Arabs in contempt as sub-humans?

Thanks for clearing that up, but just because they were a failed state doesn't mean the invasion was legal because of that. The invasion was legal because the terrorists they were harboring committed an act of war. Same thing in Lebanon although their government is semi-functioning.

I agree about Afghanistan, we had no choice to go into there and disrupt Bin Laden and his boys. I think there are better ways to handle this latest problem. The only problem is that Israel is breaking and International law and for some that is what matters since Lebanon isnt a failed state. But its not like the US didnt invade a sovergn state in Iraq either so we can see how much that matters to some nations.

The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with Afghanistan being a "failed state" whatever that is. The invasion was legal because the county harbored a terrorist group that committed an act of war against the US. The invasion of Lebanon is legal because Lebanon harbors terrorists that committed an act of war against Israel.
Which is why the Lebanese government is pleaing for a ceasefire, right?
Which is why the Lebanese government: "was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international bordeds, and had not known about the Hezbollah operation and refused to take responsibility for the soldiers' capture. The government was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international border,"

Which is why Israel has unilaterally, with no thought otherwise, ruled out a ceasefire.

December 1918:

Muslim Arab: 512,000
Christain Arab: 61,000
Jewish: 66,000


I do admit that the Stern Gang and Irgun were black marks. The Yishuv condemned them. The Yishuv actually turned many of them into the British. As for the population. I will point out that in 1918, Jordan was part of Palestine. It was in the 1920s that 80% of Palestine was used to create the nation of Jordan.

You mean besides the fact that hitler held the Arabs in contempt as sub-humans?
Regardless of this fact, he saw them as allies who could help him (like he saw Russia pre-Barbarosa)

The convoy of civilians was not the target. The roads and the bridges were because they can be used to move supplies. Unfortunatly, the civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The reason they were there was that Israel told them to leave their village.

Also reports are indicating that far from attacking the roads and accidentally hitting the convoy


"The Israeli forces attacked them on the Shamma road"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5184122.stm
Is this good enough to count as terrorrism?

Which is why the Lebanese government: "was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international bordeds, and had not known about the Hezbollah operation and refused to take responsibility for the soldiers' capture. The government was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international border,"

There's where you're dead-wrong. It was perfectly aware of the Hezbolloah-run autonomous state in southern Lebanon. They knew about it, and Israel had begged them to do something about it for years. They adamantly refused and allowed Hezbollah to go on being there. Additionally, it wasn't even on international borders. The Hezbollah-conrolled part of Lebanon was, as the sentence would suggest, in Lebanon. Due to the fact that the terrorist/military actions committed by Hezbollah were thus committed by a piece of Lebanon, with or without the government's consent, they bare responsibility for this act of war. That's international law.

Incidentally, if you have a government-permitted autonomous state (such as Catalonia in Spain), if that state attacks another country, then whether or not you gave that state permission, you have just declared war on whoever it was your state attacked. If Catalonia attacked France (even without the approval of the Spanish government), then France and Spain are at war, and any retalitory strike Frace choses to commit is legal by international law.

There's where you're dead-wrong. It was perfectly aware of the Hezbolloah-run autonomous state in southern Lebanon. They knew about it, and Israel had begged them to do something about it for years. They adamantly refused and allowed Hezbollah to go on being there. Additionally, it wasn't even on international borders. The Hezbollah-conrolled part of Lebanon was, as the sentence would suggest, in Lebanon. Due to the fact that the terrorist/military actions committed by Hezbollah were thus committed by a piece of Lebanon, with or without the government's consent, they bare responsibility for this act of war. That's international law.
Prove it.

YOu read books about Hitler and the Germans or Russians. If you read about the Arab ties to the Nazis you whould see this. THere is no denying that the Mufti was a huge factor in the Holocaust. Do more research.

'huge' - he barely gets a mention. You overstate his importance to get a dig in at the Palestinians. Argue your case on the facts please.


THe land of the JEzreel was *snip farming on the land..

And it still didnt amount to more than 400,000 acres by 1947.


By the time the Arabs joined the effort, the writing was on the wall, and it was clear that the Ottomans would lose...

Really? So they started negotiating with the British in 1915 because they'd already prophesised who'd win? Seeing as they knew who'd win in 1915 - why did they openly revolt in 1916? Why not wait until mid 1918?

If it was unemployment, then why did they strike at the Jews? ...

Much the same reason there was race riots in Britain. People are thick and blame visible minorties for their troubles.

The immigration was stopped to appease the Mufti and his people. The Jews were stranded in Europe as a result of actions by the Mufti....

No, thats stretching it. And again, nobody knew what was going to happen. Unless you do think the Arabs are pyschic. In which case why didnt they revolt in 1890.....


Benny Morris is a revisionist historian. I don't trust him.....

Oul Benny also says that this action was perfectly justified and right by the way. He also still blames the Neighbouring Arab states. He just doesnt believe in burying the truth. I admire that.


WTF? They don't recognize Israel. They don't even have it on their maps. Egypt is the only Islamic nation that recognizes Israel......

'muslim nation'. Its not an Islamic state. As regards the PLO -


"9-10 September 1993

: Israel and the PLO recognise each other. The PLO recognises "the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security". In exchange, Yitzhak Rabin wrote that the government of Israel "has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and to engage in negotiations with the PLO in the framework of the Middle East peace process"."
http://mondediplo.com/1999/04/12pals3

They amended the charter later.

There's where you're dead-wrong. It was perfectly aware of the Hezbolloah-run autonomous state in southern Lebanon. They knew about it, and Israel had begged them to do something about it for years. They adamantly refused and allowed Hezbollah to go on being there. Additionally, it wasn't even on international borders. The Hezbollah-conrolled part of Lebanon was, as the sentence would suggest, in Lebanon. Due to the fact that the terrorist/military actions committed by Hezbollah were thus committed by a piece of Lebanon, with or without the government's consent, they bare responsibility for this act of war. That's international law.

They may have played a part in this but Israel is also in violation of International law but attacking a sovergn nation. The blockade of the ports in beruit are also in violation of inter'l law as well. So both states have violated international law, not just one.

Prove it.

Of which part do you need proof?

Of which part do you need proof?
Which is why the Lebanese government: "was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international bordeds, and had not known about the Hezbollah operation and refused to take responsibility for the soldiers' capture. The government was not aware of and does not take responsibility for, nor endorses what happened on the international border,"

That the Lebanese government supports and had a hand in the invasion across the border. Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

They may have played a part in this but Israel is also in violation of International law but attacking a sovergn nation. The blockade of the ports in beruit are also in violation of inter'l law as well. So both states have violated international law, not just one.

Actually, it isn't a violation of international law if war was already declared (which it was). Read what I wrote about Catalonia.

Actually, it isn't a violation of international law if war was already declared (which it was). Read what I wrote about Catalonia.

There has been no offical declaration of war from the Israeli Kensset (sp?) so its not a delcared war..yet.

While the emotions are high in regards to this issue, is there any reason to result in personal attacks? It serves no one,cant we discuss this like grown adults w/out attacking someone?

That the Lebanese government supports and had a hand in the invasion across the border. Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

Do you lack the sense to figure out what I said. I did not say that they had a hand in the attack on Israel, I am saying that an autonomous piece of their country does. When part of a country attacks another country, both countries (wholly) are now at war. For the second time, read my scenario about Catalonia.

There has been no offical declaration of war from the Israeli Kensset (sp?) so its not a delcared war..yet.

Actually, both Lebanon and Israel officially declared (at least to world media) that it was an act of war.

Actually, both Lebanon and Israel officially declared (at least to world media) that this was an act of war.

Saying its an act of war, and offically declaring it are two different things. We said it was an act of war after 9-11 but there was no offical declaration. If its an offical declaration, Israel could get away with more legally than it can now,its all a matter of CYA...thats all.

Do you lack the sense to figure out what I said. I did not say that they had a hand in the attack on Israel, I am saying that an autonomous piece of their country does. When part of a country attacks another country, both countries (wholly) are now at war. For the second time, read my scenario about Catalonia.
Not equivalent. One is an organ of the government (a federal state is still a state), the other is a terrorist group.

'huge' - he barely gets a mention. You overstate his importance to get a dig in at the Palestinians. Argue your case on the facts please.
You want facts, read this.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

They cite their sources so you can see where their research came from.


And it still didnt amount to more than 400,000 acres by 1947. The land given to them was mainly the land where the Jews had settled. The map of partition closely mirrors the areas of Jewish settlement. (except the Negeve where no one settled) The Arabs would've given up less had they accepted the 1937 Peel Commission recommendations.



Really? So they started negotiating with the British in 1915 because they'd already prophesised who'd win? Seeing as they knew who'd win in 1915 - why did they openly revolt in 1916? Why not wait until mid 1918?
THey joined in 1916. By that point, it was apparent the Ottoman Empire was going to lose Arabia. (the Western Front was still in question of course.)


Much the same reason there was race riots in Britain. People are thick and blame visible minorties for their troubles. Sounds like why the Germans blamed the Jews. THe Mufti struck and the Jews because they were JEws and not Muslims. He attacked them at the Wailing Wall. He used religious rhetoric to encourage his people, not economic rhetoric.


No, thats stretching it. And again, nobody knew what was going to happen. Unless you do think the Arabs are pyschic. In which case why didnt they revolt in 1890.....
The Mufti was in talks with the Nazis since 1933. He was a close friend of Heinrich Himmler so he knew damn well what was going to happen. He then incited the violence in 1936 to force an end to imigration.



Oul Benny also says that this action was perfectly justified and right by the way. He also still blames the Neighbouring Arab states. He just doesnt believe in burying the truth. I admire that. I will agree that the only Arabs who were forced to leave were those who attacked the Jews in 1947. The villages that were untouched were the neutral ones who's decendents became the "Israeli Arabs" you hear about. (note how the Muslims refuse to call them Palestinians as it would hurt their cause if people realized they didn't have to leave.)



'muslim nation'. Its not an Islamic state. As regards the PLO -


"9-10 September 1993

: Israel and the PLO recognise each other. The PLO recognises "the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security". In exchange, Yitzhak Rabin wrote that the government of Israel "has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and to engage in negotiations with the PLO in the framework of the Middle East peace process"."
http://mondediplo.com/1999/04/12pals3

They amended the charter later.
Yes the Oslo accords. The PLO didn't follow them and to this date has yet to officially recognize Israel. Hamas sure as hell doesn't. Read their charter. THe PLO charter still doesn't recognize Israel. Show me actual proof that they recognize each other today because the Palestinians sure as hell don't recognize Israel.

Saying its an act of war, and offically declaring it are two different things. We said it was an act of war after 9-11 but there was no offical declaration. If its an offical declaration, Israel could get away with more legally than it can now,its all a matter of CYA...thats all.

I think, in both cases, that it was assumed that: If someone attacks you, then you are now at war.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

* The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

Not equivalent. One is an organ of the government (a federal state is still a state), the other is a terrorist group.

Ah, but the terrorist group in question actually ran southern Lebanon (as if it were its government). It was autonomous. The goverment of Lebanon, either by giving it to them or by not intervening when it was taken, handed them control of the region. They controlled southern Lebanon, and so, when southern Lebanon attacked, all of Lebanon committed the act. It's just like the Catalan situation, except the state in question wasn't official. But it did exist. And the government of Lebanon allowed it to.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

* The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

You know i find it very interesting that in all my years of schooling and college I have never heard of this before. Being a History/Inter/l Relations major this hasnt come up. What is the name of the book this is from and its author please?

I knew someone was going to pull the Nazi/holocaust thing
Your an idiot, if you read the thread you would see I was trying to show the Mufti's role in the Holocaust. It is an important part of Middle Eastern history. Someone asked me to show proff so I just posted that as proof.

I knew someone was going to pull the Nazi/holocaust thing

Yes, because that's why Israel was formed!

You know i find it very interesting that in all my years of schooling and college I have never heard of this before. Being a History/Inter/l Relations major this hasnt come up. What is the name of the book this is from and its author please?
The fact you haven't heard of this is because your teachers didn't do a thorough job.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

This site, check their sources. This is part of public record as testimony from Nurenburg.

You want facts, read this.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

They cite their sources so you can see where their research came from.


All that states is firstly that the "lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine" and secondly that "he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently", and thirdly "He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."

That suggests that he encouraged it after it had started, but the website makes no mention of your claim that he lobbied Hitler to initiate the holocaust. The Nazi war criminal makes the inspecific claim that the Mufti was one of the initiators of it, but doesn't make it clear in what sense he means it. And definitely doesn't claim that he had any, let alone a major, role in persuading Hitler to authorise the holocaust.

In short, I call bullshit.

Ah, but the terrorist group in question actually ran southern Lebanon (as if it were its government). It was autonomous. The goverment of Lebanon, either by giving it to them or by not intervening when it was taken, handed them control of the region. They controlled southern Lebanon, and so, when southern Lebanon attacked, all of Lebanon committed the act. It's just like the Catalan situation, except the state in question wasn't official. But it did exist. And the government of Lebanon allowed it to.
Nonsense. Lebanon is moving towards disbanding Hezbollah, slowly, yes, but moving. Hezbollah's armed wing is not condoned by the Lebanonese government, and is more of a group acting outside of the authority of the law then a group with the tacit concent of the authorities.

All that states is firstly that the "lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine" and secondly that "he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently", and thirdly "He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."

That suggests that he encouraged it after it had started, but the website makes no mention of your claim that he lobbied Hitler to initiate the holocaust. The Nazi war criminal makes the inspecific claim that the Mufti was one of the initiators of it, but doesn't make it clear in what sense he means it. And definitely doesn't claim that he had any, let alone a major, role in persuading Hitler to authorise the holocaust.

In short, I call bullshit.
At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

* The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

You know i find it very interesting that in all my years of schooling and college I have never heard of this before. Being a History/Inter/l Relations major this hasnt come up. What is the name of the book this is from and its author please?

Yes, sadly, in all my schooling, they spent one hour on the Holocaust. In all of the history books combined, there were seven paragraphs. Sadly, many people of my generation don't even know what it is. It's disgusting.

The fact you haven't heard of this is because your teachers didn't do a thorough job.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

This site, check their sources. This is part of public record as testimony from Nurenburg. I know your closed mind can't absorb this, but it is the truth.

You attack me personally w/out even knowing me. I asked so I could look into it and ask questions about it. That is not being closed minded. That is wanting to know more and ask. I dont understand why you felt the need to call me closed minded. All I said was I had not heard of it, how is that close minded?

Nonsense. Lebanon is moving towards disbanding Hezbollah, slowly, yes, but moving. Hezbollah's armed wing is not condoned by the Lebanonese government, and is more of a group acting outside of the authority of the law then a group with the tacit concent of the authorities.

Lebanon made no serious attempts to stop it. I would call that passive concent.

You attack me personally w/out even knowing me. I asked so I could look into it and ask questions about it. That is not being closed minded. That is wanting to know more and ask. I dont understand why you felt the need to call me closed minded. All I said was I had not heard of it, how is that close minded?
I apologize. I'm just pissed off with all of the idiotic posts circling around here.

Someone asked me to show proff so I just posted that as proof.my mistake (the post you are replying was.. far up)
Your an idiot.since I made a mistake.. I will take in your insult and not retaliate in any shape or form.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

* The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
Putting aside Eichmann's feelings for "the mufti", the fact still remains that Arabs as a whole were marked out for extermination as the jews were.

Putting aside Eichmann's feelings for "the mufti", the fact still remains that Arabs as a whole were marked out for extermination as the jews were.
That's true, but they didn't know it so they were going to do all they could to help the Nazis get the Jews.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

* The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
Yes, I read and quoted that in my post. And pointed out that it's inspecific, makes no mention of your claim that he persuaded Hitler, or that he played a major role. Secondly it's hardly the most reliable of sources, given by a person in who's interests it was to shift responsibility away from himself and the Nazi party.

Putting aside Eichmann's feelings for "the mufti", the fact still remains that Arabs as a whole were marked out for extermination as the jews were.

They weren't. They were treated as the dreggs of society, and African-Americans were treated as sub-human scum, but Arabs weren't (at least in the short term) being exterminated in the concentration camps.

Lebanon made no serious attempts to stop it. I would call that passive concent.
I call it a sign of the weakness of the lebanese government.

Lebanon made no serious attempts to stop it. I would call that passive concent.
Lebanon used what little power it had effectively through the Joint Security force to respond to blue line infractions, and Israel wasn't helping things by deciding to overfly the line every now and then to do god knows what. Lebanon is extremely weak politically, and has very little power, especially facing a group with the reputation of Hezbollah.

They weren't. They were treated as the dreggs of society, and African-Americans were treated as sub-human scum, but Arabs weren't (at least in the short term) being exterminated in the concentration camps.
They were on the chopping block, if not being exterminated. Saying that the Arabs egged on hitler is asanine as they would be writing their own death warrant.

Lebanon made no serious attempts to stop it. I would call that passive concent.

And how was Lebanon supposed to do that? Hezbollah by itself could put up a very even fight with the Lebanese military, which is in no way a major fighting force.(I have family who are members of the Lebanese armed forces) and that is assuming the Syrian's, who happen to basically control Lebanon, and who just happen to be one of Hezbollahs prinicpal backers and allies wouldn't get involved, which they would. Lebanon can not do shit on its own about Hezbollah, and asking Lebanon to do so is asking us to commit suicide.

I call it a sign of the weakness of the lebanese government.

It's that too.

Nonsense. Lebanon is moving towards disbanding Hezbollah, slowly, yes, but moving. Hezbollah's armed wing is not condoned by the Lebanonese government, and is more of a group acting outside of the authority of the law then a group with the tacit concent of the authorities.

Point me to one instance when Lebanon did anything towards disbanding Hezbollah. Point me to one.

While you're at it, can you find ways of refuiting the multiple quotes made by the Lebanese president supporting Hezbollah?

You want facts, read this.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

They cite their sources so you can see where their research came from.
.

Yep. Wild exagaration of his importance to get a dig in at the palestinians.


The land given to them was mainly the land where the Jews had settled. The map of partition closely mirrors the areas of Jewish settlement. (except the Negeve where no one settled) The Arabs would've given up less had they accepted the 1937 Peel Commission recommendations..

Neither here nor there what they would have got. What I'm talking about is what happened.



THey joined in 1916. By that point, it was apparent the Ottoman Empire was going to lose Arabia. (the Western Front was still in question of course.)
.

Really? So they knew in 1915 (when they started negotiations) that the British and allies were going to win....despite the defeat of the allies at Gallipoli...are they any good at giving out results for horses as well?


Sounds like why the Germans blamed the Jews. THe Mufti struck and the Jews because they were JEws and not Muslims. He attacked them at the Wailing Wall. He used religious rhetoric to encourage his people, not economic rhetoric..

I suggest you read the report.


The Mufti was in talks with the Nazis since 1933. He was a close friend of Heinrich Himmler so he knew damn well what was going to happen. He then incited the violence in 1936 to force an end to imigration...

So he knew the British would slow down (not end) immigration in advance....One wonders why he didnt use his powers of forsight to better ends......


I will agree that the only Arabs who were forced to leave were those who attacked the Jews in 1947. The villages that were untouched were the neutral ones who's decendents became the "Israeli Arabs" you hear about. (note how the Muslims refuse to call them Palestinians as it would hurt their cause if people realized they didn't have to leave.)...

Whether you agree or not, or I vanish off the face of the earth or not, what happened happened. And no, it was not only "those who attacked the Jews".



Yes the Oslo accords. The PLO didn't follow them and to this date has yet to officially recognize Israel. Hamas sure as hell doesn't. Read their charter. THe PLO charter still doesn't recognize Israel. Show me actual proof that they recognize each other today because the Palestinians sure as hell don't recognize Israel.

"1998: Letter of Assurance from PNA Chairman Yasser Arafat - In 1998, PLO Chairman Arafat issued a letter assuring the US that provisions of the PLO charter regarding destruction of Israel were null and void, and specified which provisions were nullified. "
http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm

And how was Lebanon supposed to do that?

That's not Israel's problem. A terrorist organization exists, it attacks Israel, Israel has the right to defend themselves from that organization by combatting them, those that would allow them to exist, and by cutting off their infrastructure.

Lebanon chose to avoid having a civil war and instead get invaded. Which was the better choice for them? Time will tell, but it was the choice their government made, and it is the Lebanese government's fault.

As for Arab involvement in WW1, which doesn't have much to do this this, but anyway...The Arabs had a MUCH bigger effect on the war than the Jews. The Arab revolt in June of 1916 in Arabia was kew to the fall of tat province, and Arab forces were also key to the fall of the entire Middle East. I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened in the end, but it would have taken much longer and cost many many more Allied lives. As for the Jews, I have not seen or heard of the Jews having any great effect in the Middle East during teh war, though Hundreds of thousands served in both Allied and Central Power armies(100,000 Jews served in the German army in WW1, pretty ironic actually to think about what happened the next go around). Now, while I haven't heard or read about any major Jewish involvement in the ME, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, so IDF, if you have some proof I would honestly enjoy seeing it, as I do like learning new facts and that would be one. Though I doubt with the tiny Jewish population in the ME at the time they could have had a great effect in the area.

Point me to one instance when Lebanon did anything towards disbanding Hezbollah. Point me to one.

While you're at it, can you find ways of refuiting the multiple quotes made by the Lebanese president supporting Hezbollah?
Lahoud has been unpopular for a long time.

The Council also commended the Lebanese Government for taking steps to ensure the return of its effective authority throughout the south, including the deployment of Lebanese armed forces. It called on the Government to continue these measures and to do its utmost to ensure a calm environment throughout the south.

The Secretary-General noted that the Lebanese Government had demonstrated its capacity to increase its authority throughout southern Lebanon, particularly through the activities of the Joint Security Forces and the Lebanese Army. He added that, consistent with Security Council resolution 425 (1978), Lebanon should continue to deploy its armed forces to extend its control over the south.

The Secretary-General said that the rocket-firing incidents perpetrated by individuals allegedly affiliated with Palestinian militant factions demonstrated the volatility of the sector. Importantly, none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation, and for this the parties and UNIFIL deserved credit. Nevertheless, this type of incidents presented a great risk to stability in the area. The Lebanese Government continued to exercise the capacity it had demonstrated thus far to exert its security authority through various activities of the Joint Security Force, including prompt responses to specific incidents. More needs to be done, however, to meet the Security Council's call for extended measures to ensure the return of effective governmental authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of additional Lebanese armed forces. Once again, the Secretary-General urged the Government to do its utmost to ensure calm and to exert full control over the use of force across its entire territory.

Additionally, closer coordination between UNIFIL and the Joint Security Force patrols in the south would contribute to enhancing the role and activities of the Lebanese Armed Forces in the area. The implications of an increased presence of the Lebanese Armed Forces in the south for UNIFIL structure and force strength would be regularly assessed.

Also by the resolution, the Council welcomed the Government’s recent establishment of a Lebanese Armed Forces liaison office at UNIFIL headquarters, and acknowledged the firm intention of the Lebanese Government to preserve security and, to that end, to reinforce the presence of its Armed Forces in the southern region and to coordinate their activities with UNIFIL.


Of course, it is slow progress, but it's progress.

They were on the chopping block, if not being exterminated. Saying that the Arabs egged on hitler is asanine as they would be writing their own death warrant.

Actually, many Arab groups did try to aid Hitler in the destruction of the Jews.

Actually, many Arab groups did try to aid Hitler in the destruction of the Jews.
And just as many fought against him. Come on, you can't play the game of slandering an entire side with the same color of paint.