NationStates Jolt Archive

That's fine - if you ignore the fact that Ben Gurion and the other founders of Israel practically begged the Palestinians to stay and be part of the Israeli state. .

No, they most certainly did not.

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Ben Gurion - 12 July 1937)

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (30/11/1947 - Ben Gurion)

"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (ben Gurion - 07/02/1948)


"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," (Ben Gurion 16/06/1948)


"After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, .... What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities ..... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution .... and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.
Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring" (Y Rabin -10th,11th July 1948)


I know that there was a lot of ethnic strife, and that the extreme right-wing Movement of Zion types did shove some Palestinians off land that they had no claim on, but I also know that the majority of Palestinians "packed themselves into" the Palestinian controlled areas (actually larger than Israel was at the time) [I]by their own choice. Your quote was Ben Gurion explaining why that happened - but frankly, just because the Palestinians felt that way doesn't make it true..

See above.



The avowed goal of the Yom Kippur war on the Arab side was to (and I quote) "Drive the Jews into the sea." (I think that was Nasser, but in all honesty I'm not certain.) Certainly sounds like extermination to me...

And not at all like typical middle eastern rhetoric.....


But the Palestinians lost any reasonable claim to East Jerusalem when they violated the agreements that divided the city, and specified that it be a non-military zone. Israel can quite reasonably say "Well, if we give it back they'll just do it all again. No thanks."


Yet strangely the overwhelming majority of legal opinion begs to differ. Only in two places in the world is your idea taken seriously.

A ton of our military technologyis Israeli. We use them for R & D of stuff like UAVs, communications equipment, RADAR, etc.

As for the current wars, you might recall during the build-up to Iraq, the US asked Sharon not to get involved even if Iraq fired missiles on them.

If you can't see why it is politically impossible for Israel to help the US right now, then you trully need to get a better understanding of the world.

Looking it up it appears the Stealth Bomber cost about $20Billion in R&D.

From THIS (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html) site it appears that the US has given Israel $80Billion.

And in return for a cash investment four times greater than the cost of the R&D of a Stealth bomber they have recieved some R&D(By which I am guessing you mean field testing) of APCs, radios and radar...

Not to mention the semi-indirect cost to the US caused by it's close association with Israel.

That's fine - if you ignore the fact that Ben Gurion and the other founders of Israel practically begged the Palestinians to stay and be part of the Israeli state. I know that there was a lot of ethnic strife, and that the extreme right-wing Movement of Zion types did shove some Palestinians off land that they had no claim on, but I also know that the majority of Palestinians "packed themselves into" the Palestinian controlled areas (actually larger than Israel was at the time) by their own choice.


I have to call bullshit. The Israeli army pushed the Palestinians out of their own homes by force. Ben Gurion destroyed 78% of Arab towns within Palestine. Do we want another quote from Ben Gurion?? "Destruction of Palestine is a neccessary condition for the well being of Israel" Which also explains why they are cramping the Palestinians into small spaces.. Oh goodness you have to love the hypocricy of Zionism :).


Your quote was Ben Gurion explaining why that happened - but frankly, just because the Palestinians felt that way doesn't make it true.


He says that politically the Israelis were aggressors against the Palestinians



The avowed goal of the Yom Kippur war on the Arab side was to (and I quote) "Drive the Jews into the sea." (I think that was Nasser, but in all honesty I'm not certain.) Certainly sounds like extermination to me.

I'd love to enlighten you to the fact that the combined Irgun and Haganah forces drove Palestinians into the sea at Jaffa and drowned many of them. Again the hypocricy of Zionism :)


As to the relative importance of various pieces of architecture, that's purely subjective. To me, an Athiest, none of it has meaning, save as archaeology or for sheer beauty. To an Orthodox Jew, the Wailing Wall could be considered the most important place on earth; at the same time, to many in Islam the Dome of the Rock is the second most holy place in the world.

But the Palestinians lost any reasonable claim to East Jerusalem when they violated the agreements that divided the city, and specified that it be a non-military zone. Israel can quite reasonably say "Well, if we give it back they'll just do it all again. No thanks."


It was their land to begin with, Jewish settlers and illegal immigration are the creation of Israel, and terror for that matter. This is the land of Palestine not the land of Israel. There wasn't even 1% Jewish population in 1882. I also don't think its reasonable for a country to give out citizenship based on religion. All Jews are considered Israelis today, even though racially they have been intermixed with several other different cultures. I honestly don't see how they can have a valid claim on that land.

In terms of violating agreements. 40% of Israeli settlement is illegal even under the Israeli law in the West Bank. (High Court ruled in 1970's that no Israeli could settle within the boundaries of the West Bank). They have also violated the 1967 borders and are enclosing them in a smaller area with this wall.


All religion is just an excuse to grab power and influence. To be perfectly honest, the Israelis have been much more understanding and merciful than I would have been - had I been on the receiving end of all the bombs, rockets, mortars and assorted other crap the Palestinians have been throwing at them for fifty years, I'd've probably just expelled the lot of them from the entire region. Let Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt deal with the mess.

Well to an atheist you wouldn't see the importance of religion. But it is a beautiful thing when it isn't violated to achieve political goals. Hah Palestinians have been on the recieving end of bombs from Israeli F-16's for as long as I can remember. These attacks are disproportionate as I said before. I don't endorse these attacks in anyway, but if Israel retaliated reasonably I wouldn't object to this except for the fact that they aren't given a political voice anyway so they have to use violence to show the world how much the land of Palestine means to them.

Thanks for the resources that you are giving me to debate against you on this topic :) it's actually not even that difficult

I guess I must accept that Ben Gurion and the other founders were less than positive role-models. They certainly had a habit of doing one thing and saying another.


I'd love to enlighten you to the fact that the combined Irgun and Haganah forces drove Palestinians into the sea at Jaffa and drowned many of them. Again the hypocricy of Zionism :)


I can't call that hypocrisy - evil and nasty, certainly, but I don't see it as hypocritical to do to your enemy what he planned to do to you.


It was their land to begin with, Jewish settlers and illegal immigration are the creation of Israel, and terror for that matter. This is the land of Palestine not the land of Israel. There wasn't even 1% Jewish population in 1882. I also don't think its reasonable for a country to give out citizenship based on religion. All Jews are considered Israelis today, even though racially they have been intermixed with several other different cultures. I honestly don't see how they can have a valid claim on that land.


Depends on how far back you want to go, doesn't it? Prior claims always seem to have someone else with an even prior claim.
As to the Israeli claim - in 1948, I'd actually agree with you. The Israelis had no valid claim. Today, however, they have the two most valid claims in human history:

Conquest,

Possession.


In terms of violating agreements. 40% of Israeli settlement is illegal even under the Israeli law in the West Bank. (High Court ruled in 1970's that no Israeli could settle within the boundaries of the West Bank). They have also violated the 1967 borders and are enclosing them in a smaller area with this wall.


Just because the Israelis are vilolating agreements now does not absolve the Palestinians from violating a freely made agreement then.

And frankly, I'd have more of a problem with this wall if it didn't seem to be working.


Well to an atheist you wouldn't see the importance of religion. But it is a beautiful thing when it isn't violated to achieve political goals. Hah Palestinians have been on the recieving end of bombs from Israeli F-16's for as long as I can remember. These attacks are disproportionate as I said before. I don't endorse these attacks in anyway, but if Israel retaliated reasonably I wouldn't object to this except for the fact that they aren't given a political voice anyway so they have to use violence to show the world how much the land of Palestine means to them.


Well, I must point out they had a real government to speak for them for a while. And while it is most certainly true that the Israelis have effectively castrated that, the Israelis did so only afer it became clear that the Palestinian Authority had either no power or no interest in curbing the attacks on Israelis.

I actually supported the original intifada. I completely believe that the Palestinians deserve a nation and sovereign land to call their own. I just don't feel that Israel is being unreasonable in the demand that the Palestinians stop attacking Israelis as the price for such a nation.

Thanks for the resources that you are giving me to debate against you on this topic :) it's actually not even that difficult

Hey, I'm learning stuff. Any day you learn something new is a good day.

If any nation is allowed to take any territory any time just because it is of strategic importance, we're gonna see lots of border changes I'm afraid. :(

I guess I must accept that Ben Gurion and the other founders were less than positive role-models. They certainly had a habit of doing one thing and saying another.

No Zionist was ever a good role-model in my opinion. They encouraged violence and mass immigration to achieve their aims and the robbery of assets from Palestinians.


I can't call that hypocrisy - evil and nasty, certainly, but I don't see it as hypocritical to do to your enemy what he planned to do to you.

I find it hypocritical that pro-Zionists can use the "driving to the Sea" quote from the Syrians as an excuse when the Haganah and the Irgun actually drove the Palestinians to the sea during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War out of their hometown of Jaffa as David Ben Gurion wanted to make Jaffa an Israeli only town. Maybe you don't but I still do.


Depends on how far back you want to go, doesn't it? Prior claims always seem to have someone else with an even prior claim.
As to the Israeli claim - in 1948, I'd actually agree with you. The Israelis had no valid claim. Today, however, they have the two most valid claims in human history:

Conquest,

Possession.

Conquest and Possession most certainly do not give you the right to claim land that isn't yours. Look at the scenario with Britain and Ireland from about the 1500's to the 1700's when they controlled the whole of our island. They conquested it and they had possession over it but that didn't make the land theirs. Through political and insurgent struggle we got a 22 county republic. Due to ethnic reasons in the North the entire area is not ours as yet, but that is reasonable in my opinion until the time they decide to join us. The same applies to Palestine in my opinion. The land was theirs but I would be happy with a reasonable donation of land back to them for their new state.


Just because the Israelis are vilolating agreements now does not absolve the Palestinians from violating a freely made agreement then.

And frankly, I'd have more of a problem with this wall if it didn't seem to be working.

the wall is clearly racist and doesn't allow them to move between borders and within their own areas. They aren't allowed to trade goods internationally it is almost like the Israelis want to ruin their entire lives.


Well, I must point out they had a real government to speak for them for a while. And while it is most certainly true that the Israelis have effectively castrated that, the Israelis did so only afer it became clear that the Palestinian Authority had either no power or no interest in curbing the attacks on Israelis.


They haven't had a real government to speak for them ever. They don't have any say in much of what is going on in Palestine. Israel completely ignores them and even more so since Hamas came to power in January. For this peace process to work there needs to be some form of effort on the Israeli side.

I actually supported the original intifada. I completely believe that the Palestinians deserve a nation and sovereign land to call their own. I just don't feel that Israel is being unreasonable in the demand that the Palestinians stop attacking Israelis as the price for such a nation
But you don't consider it unfair that the Israelis use F-16 fighter jets when they use plastic rockets? In fairness if their retaliation was proportionate it would be reasonable for them to defend the nation of Israel, but these people are the only defence the Palestinians have against Israeli attacks. These militants are the only people that will be listened to in order to give them a Palestinian state as the political system there is purely dysfunctional.

So that would be Zero wars Israel has helped America with?
Did they help out with any that did not involve the ME? Say Vietnam?


So... This is more of America helping Israel than vice versa - they give you intelligence so you can help them. How selfless....

I suppose it is more beneficial to Israel than the USA. I'm glad you bring this point up, actually.

This just proves that the USA does do things that aren't always in their best and sole interests. It proves that America is helping others, just to Help out. What generosity.

Sure they're people, but when they put their lives on the line to defend military assets they're combatants and are subject to being killed by their enemy. I would have bombed the houses.

I agree. I would have bombed it too.

When Israel warned the people that they planned on bombing the houses. The people chose to act as Human Shields. It was their choice. Most of understand that their are consequences for the choices we make. Why should this be any different?

I got only one acronym for thos who think the USA would support Israel in a fight with either Germany or France: NATO.

At the absolute worst, the US would not interfere. They would be obligated under treaty to assist at least logistically their NATO brethren.

There is just no way the US would pull out of NATO for Israel. Do you honestly think the US is willing to face economical sanction that would cripple them for the next two generation for some religious wingnut over there who are too zealous in their fight against other religious wingnut to pick a fight with the big boys that actually sell weapons?

Remeber people, an attack against one member of NATO is an attack against all of them. A declaration of war is the same.

Do you think that the world can afford to try to cripple the USA's economy in any way, shape, or form? Do you not think that the world would ultimately be hurting themselves as bad if not worse than the effects of the US?

As for Israel and the USA's relationship. It is very strong as it should be. The USA will continue to support and help protect Israel, period. Yes even over NATO's "brethren". I honestly feel that the USA has a stronger relationship with Israel than all of NATO.

Good for them to have you then. I for one would put no euro no sheqel no dollar in Israel and I would never defend it. I am/would also be against it if the Netherlands or any European country would put effort in supporting an apartheid government.

I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American." - Daniel Webster

No ambition in life at all, at all....

No ambition in life at all, at all....

Here's the full quote.....

"I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country’s, my God’s, and Truth’s. I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American."

Daniel Webster

As for Israel and the USA's relationship. It is very strong as it should be. The USA will continue to support and help protect Israel, period. Yes even over NATO's "brethren". I honestly feel that the USA has a stronger relationship with Israel than all of NATO.

The U.S. should encourage Israel to not be so trigger happy with their weapons. Should they choose to ignore our advice then they should pay the price of our cutting off their aid. We shall see how easy of a time they have killing Palestinians without us bankrolling them.

Do you think that the world can afford to try to cripple the USA's economy in any way, shape, or form? Do you not think that the world would ultimately be hurting themselves as bad if not worse than the effects of the US?
And neither can the US cripple Europe'S economy in any way, shape or form. You are a net importer of goods. If you want to go in an econmic war with the world, you'll loose. Period. Nationalism is good and all but don't it blind you. The fact is that a war cripples the economy. Any war. Besides, the world got over the last economic woe and it will survive the downfall of the US.

As for Israel and the USA's relationship. It is very strong as it should be. The USA will continue to support and help protect Israel, period. Yes even over NATO's "brethren". I honestly feel that the USA has a stronger relationship with Israel than all of NATO.
Good thing your belief is not moored in any sense of reality because there is no way the US would back Israel against NATO. Just the simple fact that the US need NATO in Afganistan right now should show you how erroneous your assumption is. From a sheer pragamtic view, you need NATO more than Israel.

Also, wasn't it you that said we should keepour discussion out of the US and you would do the same for the rest of the world? Please refrain from discussing Israel since you don't want us to discuss the USA.

Conquest and Possession most certainly do not give you the right to claim land that isn't yours. Look at the scenario with Britain and Ireland from about the 1500's to the 1700's when they controlled the whole of our island. They conquested it and they had possession over it but that didn't make the land theirs. Through political and insurgent struggle we got a 22 county republic. Due to ethnic reasons in the North the entire area is not ours as yet, but that is reasonable in my opinion until the time they decide to join us. The same applies to Palestine in my opinion. The land was theirs but I would be happy with a reasonable donation of land back to them for their new state.


I could certainly live with that.


the wall is clearly racist and doesn't allow them to move between borders and within their own areas. They aren't allowed to trade goods internationally it is almost like the Israelis want to ruin their entire lives.


Yes. But it also saves lives.


They haven't had a real government to speak for them ever. They don't have any say in much of what is going on in Palestine. Israel completely ignores them and even more so since Hamas came to power in January. For this peace process to work there needs to be some form of effort on the Israeli side.


I agree. The Israelis have not held up their side of the bargain.

But neither have the Palestinians. The Israelis, to their credit, did actually accept and stand by a cease-fire for several months. Frankly, the Palestinian side appeared to regard this as an all-you-can-kill buffet. Possibly, Arafat's government was unable to stop the killers, but I frankly see little evidence of their even trying to.
And why should Israel listen to Hamas? Hamas, like Syria, retains it's stated intenion to destroy Israel. You don't negotiate with someone who's trying to kill you.


But you don't consider it unfair that the Israelis use F-16 fighter jets when they use plastic rockets? In fairness if their retaliation was proportionate it would be reasonable for them to defend the nation of Israel, but these people are the only defence the Palestinians have against Israeli attacks. These militants are the only people that will be listened to in order to give them a Palestinian state as the political system there is purely dysfunctional.

Actually, no, I don't really see it as unfair. If you pick a fight with someone with F-16s when all you have is a few home-made mortars, you deserve the pasting you're about to receive.

And yes, the Palestinians did pick this fight. After the first Intifada, Israel and the PLO hammered out a series of agreements. Now, Israel is probably as guilty as the Palestinians over the failure of those accords - but only AS guilty. In a very real way, the Palestinians did bring this on themselves. Every suicide bomber was another nail in the coffin of a negotiated settlement.

Yes. But it also saves lives.

No, it saves Israeli lives and allows them to rack up more Palestinian deaths when they fire into Gaza or raid the West Bank.


I agree. The Israelis have not held up their side of the bargain.

But neither have the Palestinians. The Israelis, to their credit, did actually accept and stand by a cease-fire for several months. Frankly, the Palestinian side appeared to regard this as an all-you-can-kill buffet. Possibly, Arafat's government was unable to stop the killers, but I frankly see little evidence of their even trying to.
And why should Israel listen to Hamas? Hamas, like Syria, retains it's stated intenion to destroy Israel. You don't negotiate with someone who's trying to kill you.

Excuse me, the Palestinian militants gave the IDF a ceasefire in Gaza but they have just rejected it. It's just more fun to kill Palestinians than to have peace so it seems. So if anyone is involved in an all-you-can-kill buffet its the Israelis. Why do you think there are militants in the first place anyway?
Its because of the lack of a voice. Personally I think that if Palestine is not a state it's voice should be heard in the Knesset rather than in their own dysfunctional government until a free Palestine comes about. In relation to "destroying Israel" I think I should go back to Ben Gurions quote "Destruction of Palestine is a neccessary condition for Israel's wellbeing". Also there is a difference between not recognising Israel and wanting to destroy it. I don't think that Israel as a state should exist but I don't want to destroy it. And unless you can prove that Hizbullah were sponsored by Syria theres very little proof of them wanting to destroy it. As for Hamas, they are fighting for their freedom and when they don't have a voice unfortunately the only way they can get it is through fighting. I don't endorse this, I would much rather have Israel and Palestine back at the table again but this doesn't look like it's going to happen in fairness.


Actually, no, I don't really see it as unfair. If you pick a fight with someone with F-16s when all you have is a few home-made mortars, you deserve the pasting you're about to receive.

except they can cover whole towns and villages with cluster bombs and have done so in the past in both Palestine and Lebanon. Civilian casualties ensue and they rarely kill a militant without killing a civilian too. Do Palestinian civilians really deserve the "pasting they recieve" I don't think so.


And yes, the Palestinians did pick this fight. After the first Intifada, Israel and the PLO hammered out a series of agreements. Now, Israel is probably as guilty as the Palestinians over the failure of those accords - but only AS guilty. In a very real way, the Palestinians did bring this on themselves. Every suicide bomber was another nail in the coffin of a negotiated settlement.

The negotiated settlement wasn't even enough. 95% of the West Bank and Gaza is not enough, 100% is what they need.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians



Personally I say this makes them targets if they willingly use their bodies to defend terrorists.

Either way, the anti-Israel Nazis on this site have no standing when claiming the "evil Jooz" are trying to commit genocide.

Look man, neither side is in the right on this issue. Israel is just as bad to them, as they are to you all. Only difference is now they are doing to Israel, what the Jewish people did to them when it was Palestine, i.e commit horrid terrorist acts against each other.


Therefore, I don't give a damn what happens to Israel or Palestine. Neither side produces anything, and gives nothing to the world. They exist merely off of US support.


I'm not anti-semetic or anything, one of my best friends is a Jewish lass, and I have a good buddy in the Israeli Army, but I don't think the US gets anything from supporting Israel.


You should probably ignore what I'm saying anyhow. I've not slept much lately, and I tend to be extremely pissy when I'm tired.

Lots of people are speaking so positive about the "promised land". Are you people willing to fight for it? Don't miss the chance to support an apartheid system.

An invisible "promise" by an invisible man/woman/entity.

Just once I'd like to see a headline that reads, "Israel under restraint".

Just once I'd like to see a headline that reads, "Israel under restraint".

Probably on April 1st, otherwise I doubt it.

Germany and France certainly do have the force projection assets.As we've already concluded,France and Germany would wipe the floor with Israel,in a horrific way.

France? Fight? :D

No, you seriously underestimate Israel's military potential. Even the United States, throwing our entire military power on them, would have a really hard time defeating them. And yet, France and Germany will "wipe the floor with them?" Please.

on the issue of "the promised land". who the fuck promised it to them? i certainly didnt.

the greeks named that area sometime in bc. something around palestinea. named after the phillistines.
there alot jews there at that point but eventually became apart of the christian empire(actual name). then around 600ad taken over by muslims. then around 15th centuary became apart of the ottoman empire. then called 'filestine'.
the zionist movement began 1886. no real claim over the land at all.

on the issue of "the promised land". who the fuck promised it to them? i certainly didnt.

the greeks named that area sometime in bc. something around palestinea. named after the phillistines.
there alot jews there at that point but eventually became apart of the christian empire(actual name). then around 600ad taken over by muslims. then around 15th centuary became apart of the ottoman empire. then called 'filestine'.
the zionist movement began 1886. no real claim over the land at all.

Yeah, no real claim except that they've build cities and roads and universities and factories and airports. No claim at all. They could just pick up and move so easily, couldn't they?

Face facts, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are going anywhere. They'd better find a way to live together or they'll be dying together for a long time to come.

France? Fight? :D

No, you seriously underestimate Israel's military potential. Even the United States, throwing our entire military power on them, would have a really hard time defeating them. And yet, France and Germany will "wipe the floor with them?" Please.

You seem to be overestimating the admittingly quite strong Israeli military. If the US threw its entire military power at Israel it would be over in less then a week even without weapons of mass destruction.

Israels biggest weakness is its geography. It is small and therefore the US would just have to carpet bomb and launch missiles without restraint.
Don't forget the US has military bases and strategic points situated in many places in the world. US bombs can reach Israeli soil, but Israel would have to restructure its entire military to reach US soil. The best it could do is hit US embassies and military bases in the region, while the US is remorselessy bombing its towns, villages, and cities, Israelis are dying in thousands by the hour (remember full military strength = no restraint for civilian lives).
I doubt the US would then even have to land troops, the with the infrastructure in pure chaos, whole towns no longer existing, people fleeing left and right, the several Arab nations nearby would pounce and send in its troops which vastly outnumber the Israeli army and deal the deathblow.
Of course Israel also has enemies inside its own borders, Palestinians and Israeli Arabs could use the chaos to drive the dagger deeper blow up roads, and try and hinder the Israeli army even further.

Of course if the US fights normally such as in Iraq, with restraint and not with its full military capability, it would drag on longer.
But there again the US numbers in the end will prevail. 300 million > 13-15 million, especially when the 300 million nation has in some respects superior technology, better geographical disposition, and not surrounded by enemies.


Its the same reason why France and Germany could defeat Israel if they wished. Although it would be tougher for them then for the US, both nations would have to restructure their respective militaries.
Although to turn the scenario around Israel would never have a chance to to defeat Germany or France aggressively, it could only possibly win if its the defender. The Israeli military could not manage to land troops in Germany or France for occupation. Both nations have 70+ million populations, on top of having the rest of the European nations to aid it per treaty, including the US which would sit neutral in the conflict as its economy would be very badly hurt if the EU no longer trades with it, while on the other hand Israel doesn't have much incentive for support, no large economy, etc..

So please stop wishthinking. The Israeli military while undoubtly powerfull, and perhaps one of the best in defence, is hopeless in invading nations on other continents or challenging nations with over 20x its population and especially if that respective nation has the most powerfull military in the world.

on the issue of "the promised land". who the fuck promised it to them? i certainly didnt.

the greeks named that area sometime in bc. something around palestinea. named after the phillistines.
there alot jews there at that point but eventually became apart of the christian empire(actual name). then around 600ad taken over by muslims. then around 15th centuary became apart of the ottoman empire. then called 'filestine'.
the zionist movement began 1886. no real claim over the land at all.

Zionism started around 1870 but the Zionist Congress began in 1882 I think. But anyway, Abraham promised this land to Jews, Christians and Muslims, since they are all Abrahamic religions. Also the Jewish Kingdom wasn't around for that long at all between the Kings of David and Solomon. They also conquested the land from another tribe (I think the Caananites) so they weren't the true inhabitors of the land either.

No, it saves Israeli lives and allows them to rack up more Palestinian deaths when they fire into Gaza or raid the West Bank.


So, it's doing what it was designed to do: save innocent lives. I don't give a shit what race, religion or creed the people saved are. When the Israelis go after somebody in Gaza, they at least have the polite fiction that they're going after a terrorist (which is sometimes true, sometimes not). The Palestinian suicide murderers were aiming at maximum number of civlian deaths - and they have been STOPPED. I can't consider that anything but a good thing.


Excuse me, the Palestinian militants gave the IDF a ceasefire in Gaza but they have just rejected it. It's just more fun to kill Palestinians than to have peace so it seems. So if anyone is involved in an all-you-can-kill buffet its the Israelis. Why do you think there are militants in the first place anyway?


Because they are stupid. Okay, that may be overstating the case - uneducated, perhaps, incapable of critical thinking.
The peace accords which Arafat signed were the one chance the Palestinians had in this generation of getting better than the raw deal they currently have. Frankly, they pissed it away for nothing. They had a voice, they had a government, they damn near had a sovereign state - hell, they even had the Prime Minister of Israel onside! All they had to do was leave Israel alone.
But they didn't. They blew up and assassinated Israelis, started the second intifada, and they lost the voice of reason in Israel.
And like I said, give me one good reason why Israel should listen to, or believe one word of, an organization dedicated to their destruction.


Its because of the lack of a voice. Personally I think that if Palestine is not a state it's voice should be heard in the Knesset rather than in their own dysfunctional government until a free Palestine comes about. In relation to "destroying Israel" I think I should go back to Ben Gurions quote "Destruction of Palestine is a neccessary condition for Israel's wellbeing". Also there is a difference between not recognising Israel and wanting to destroy it. I don't think that Israel as a state should exist but I don't want to destroy it. And unless you can prove that Hizbullah were sponsored by Syria theres very little proof of them wanting to destroy it. As for Hamas, they are fighting for their freedom and when they don't have a voice unfortunately the only way they can get it is through fighting. I don't endorse this, I would much rather have Israel and Palestine back at the table again but this doesn't look like it's going to happen in fairness.

It's questionable whether Syria is directly backing Hezbollah; while it's pretty clear that Syria is turning a blind eye to equipment travelling through their territory, most of their funding and weapons appear to be from Iran (and it was the Iranian government under Khomeini that set up Hezbollah in the first place). Hezbollah has also been much more reasonable in their rhetoric towards Israel, making a clear distinction between Israel the state and the Jewish people who live there (though they have not always shown any such distinction in their actions).

Hamas, on the other hand, has repeatedly called for the destruction of the jewish state and eviction of all jews from the middle east (better than "drive them into the sea", I concede, but not by much). They have actively sponsored suicide murderers and killed peace activists as traitors to Palestine. Despite this, Israel asked only for one thing when Hamas won the Palestinian elections: theat they refrain from calling for Israel's destruction. They didn't ask for recognition, only a live-and-let-live approach. Hamas was unwilling to do this.

I also would like to see Israel and Palestine talking again. But Hamas frankly doesn't seem interested - save when they're losing.


except they can cover whole towns and villages with cluster bombs and have done so in the past in both Palestine and Lebanon. Civilian casualties ensue and they rarely kill a militant without killing a civilian too. Do Palestinian civilians really deserve the "pasting they recieve" I don't think so.


They probably don't. But then, neither did the bus passengers in Israel two years ago.

The Palestinians, not the Israelis, wrote the rules of engagement for this war. They cannot now complain that the IDF is doing a better job of using them.


The negotiated settlement wasn't even enough. 95% of the West Bank and Gaza is not enough, 100% is what they need.

Then they didn't have to accept those terms. But by accepting them and then reneging on the deal, they've denied themselves peace for another generation.

Yeah, no real claim except that they've build cities and roads and universities and factories and airports. No claim at all. They could just pick up and move so easily, couldn't they?

Face facts, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are going anywhere. They'd better find a way to live together or they'll be dying together for a long time to come.

some people use the promises land thing as an accuse to murder a bunch of people.

...They also conquested the land from another tribe (I think the Caananites) so they weren't the true inhabitors of the land either.

Whether or not they were the original inhabitants of the land is of little consequence. The fact that they conquered it gives them as much right to the land as the Canaanites before them. The Canaanites weren't strong enough to hold on to their land, so the Israelis rightfully won it (or, if you're a God-fearing person, they were granted the land from God, another good reason to claim that the land is theirs).

And for those who say that Israel is using disproportionate tactics against the Palestinians... Seriously, come on now... do you expect the Israeli government to make their military men and women strap bombs to themselves, go into crowded Palestinian areas, and set off the bonbs? What Israel is doing is far more humane than the Palestinians, who, as has been said, brought this on themselves.

Because they are stupid. Okay, that may be overstating the case - uneducated, perhaps, incapable of critical thinking.
The peace accords which Arafat signed were the one chance the Palestinians had in this generation of getting better than the raw deal they currently have. Frankly, they pissed it away for nothing. They had a voice, they had a government, they damn near had a sovereign state - hell, they even had the Prime Minister of Israel onside! All they had to do was leave Israel alone.
.

And all Israel had to do was stop settlement building. However the greatest increase in settlements comes after the signing of Oslo.


But they didn't. They blew up and assassinated Israelis, started the second intifada, and they lost the voice of reason in Israel..

And you don't think that Ariel Sharons visit to the temple mount - a public visit mind, not a private one - was a provocation? (in addition to settlements etc)


And like I said, give me one good reason why Israel should listen to, or believe one word of, an organization dedicated to their destruction.
..

One could say the reverse as easily.



The Palestinians, not the Israelis, wrote the rules of engagement for this war. They cannot now complain that the IDF is doing a better job of using them.
..

As the "suicide bomb" tactic was only used from the 80's onwards, we might better ask what happened between 1967 and then to push them that way.


Then they didn't have to accept those terms. But by accepting them and then reneging on the deal, they've denied themselves peace for another generation.

'Blame the Victim' part XXI something or other...Who is occupying who?

Whether or not they were the original inhabitants of the land is of little consequence. The fact that they conquered it gives them as much right to the land as the Canaanites before them. The Canaanites weren't strong enough to hold on to their land, so the Israelis rightfully won it (or, if you're a God-fearing person, they were granted the land from God, another good reason to claim that the land is theirs)..

The Canaanite thing is largely a myth. You can guess what you can do with the "granted the land from God" thing.

Why wasnt that the case for Kuwait, by the way?


What Israel is doing is far more humane than the Palestinians, who, as has been said, brought this on themselves.

They didnt invade Israel, but were expelled from it. They are then invaded again in 1967 to see yet more colonies spring up amongst them while they are treated as if it were an apartheid state. How, therefore, did they bring this latter day colonial enterprise "on themselves"?

A ton of our military technologyis Israeli. We use them for R & D of stuff like UAVs, communications equipment, RADAR, etc.

As for the current wars, you might recall during the build-up to Iraq, the US asked Sharon not to get involved even if Iraq fired missiles on them.

If you can't see why it is politically impossible for Israel to help the US right now, then you trully need to get a better understanding of the world.

....I think you have it backwards mate. 99% of Israeli Equipment is AMERICAN. And if you think that Israel can EVER help the US, then you need to get a better understanding of the world, for I assure you, it hasn't, it isn't, and it never will. Obviously the Israelis do not want our support, since they killed good American Sailors, so I say we should have just let them on their own, and cut support to them. If they perish, so be it. They shouldn't have bit the hand that fed them.

Wait...have you been to Iraq?
I'm sure there are Iranian intelligence officials in Iraq.
But they don't want Iraq.They really don't.There isn't a bunch of Iranian people sitting round a war table discussing where to invade Iraq,because it just won't happen.Iran does not want Iraq.
They do want the Americans out of Iraq,simply because they hate the Americans.It's pretty simple.

EDIT:Also,if they are secretly arming and training these people,how are people in Iraq supposed to know these things?
That defeats the idea of it being secret,ya' know.

......Actually, he is right. They do want Iraq. The Iranians want control of the Entire Middle East, North Africa, and Greece. Ayatollah Khomeni basically said that was the objective of the Iran-Iraq war. After they secured Iraq, they would push into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, etc. They want to reestablish the old Persian Empire, but unfortunately (for them), they aren't the most technological nation in the world, nor have the best troops. (Not that the Revolutionary Guard isn't an effective fighting force, but the average Persian soldier is.....not the best motivated)


And besides, they don't even have to sneak people into Iraq anymore. The Prime Minister of Iraq asked for Syrian and Iranian support in quelling the Rebellion. If they wanted, the Revolutionary Guard could roll into Baghdad today, and the US couldn't do anything about it (except whine and sabre rattle). Sure, they could attack I suppose, but then we'd not only have to deal with the Persians, the Insurgents, and the Syrians, but now the Iraqi Government would be after us.


No, I haven't been to Iraq. Unfortunately, several of my friends have. One died in a sweep of Baghdad airport, and the other I haven't heard from since he arrived there (Three Months ago). One of them has returned from two tours (Iraq and Afghanistan), and he said that its obvious the Iranians are there, because of the way the Insurgent's fought against him in Tikrit. He claims they "Appeared like a conventional force, like the f***ing Russians we're trained to fight, but in non-conventional ways. Its crazy!" Those are his exact words.

Another friend of mine is an Iranian citizen, and has high standing there because he is....Saiid? Basically he's related to Mohammed. He sends me information on whats going on there every time he visits (Which is about once a year).


I'm not asking you to believe me, since I have no written proof (Except for the Government asking for Iranian support, which I'm sure all of you have seen on BBC, CNN, etc), but I assure you I do speak the truth. If you choose not to, oh well, I don't give a damn. I'm just speaking my mind. :)

And all Israel had to do was stop settlement building. However the greatest increase in settlements comes after the signing of Oslo.


Which was wrong. It was also illegal under Israeli law. Now, the Israelis could have done more to stop the settlements, but they weren't supporting them - and they eventually removed most of them. They held up their end of the bargain.


And you don't think that Ariel Sharons visit to the temple mount - a public visit mind, not a private one - was a provocation? (in addition to settlements etc)


No, I don't. The Dome of the Rock is open to all, unlike Mecca, and Islamic scholars freely acknowledge the importance of Temple Mount to the Jews. Ariel Sharon was a complete pain in the ass, but that was one action that was entirely reasonable.


One could say the reverse as easily.


I don't see how. Israel isn't dedicated to the destruction of anything.


As the "suicide bomb" tactic was only used from the 80's onwards, we might better ask what happened between 1967 and then to push them that way.


Actually, I don't give a fuck. Why someone chooses to become a psychopathic barbarian is of no interest to me.


'Blame the Victim' part XXI something or other...Who is occupying who?

That's a good question. Who is besieger, and who besieged?

Which was wrong. It was also illegal under Israeli law. Now, the Israelis could have done more to stop the settlements, but they weren't supporting them - and they eventually removed most of them. They held up their end of the bargain.?

Au Contraire - very Ironically Ariel Sharon commissioned a report which exposed this.

"With this report by former prosecutor Talia Sasson, they say there's finally official confirmation that the seizing of West Bank land for illegal settlement outposts involved a complex array of government support and secret funding. After six months of digging into the facts behind the outpost enterprise, Sasson says she's still not confident she knows how many outposts are out there, but there are at least 105, 24 of which were established since Prime Minister Sharon took office"
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2005/mar/050309.kenyon.html

Only 4 settlements have been removed, not "all", the "majority" or the largest.


Actually, I don't give a fuck. Why someone chooses to become a psychopathic barbarian is of no interest to me..?

Of course not, because context and motivation might well show a rather different picture of the Palestinians and their case than the "psychopathic barbarian" many would wish to portray. While I can understand a condemnation of all violence, I find it amusing that somebody can defend a colonising bunch of fanatics on one hand while condemning those resisting them as 'psychopathic barbarians' on the other.


That's a good question. Who is besieger, and who besieged?

Yes, the poor defenceless nuclear armed state - forced to build civillian colonies on stolen land to defend against the 'armoured might' of countries it now has a peace treaty with. Sounds credible

Of course not, because context and motivation might well show a rather different picture of the Palestinians and their case than the "psychopathic barbarian" many would wish to portray. While I can understand a condemnation of all violence, I find it amusing that somebody can defend a colonising bunch of fanatics on one hand while condemning those resisting them as 'psychopathic barbarians' on the other.


You don't understand because you insist on categorizing everyone on one side or the other the same way. Not all the Palestinians are suicide murderers - and only those that are (and their fellow civlian murdering scum) are psychopathic barbarians. But those pieces of shit are, indeed, psychopathic, murdering barbarians.

Nor are all Israelis fanatics. Most would just like to live in peace - and I believe that is true in both cases.

It would be nice if the Israelis stopped new settlements all together. But however illegal those settlements are, they aren't killing anybody. The Palestinian suicide murderers are not merely killing people, but deliberately targetting civilians. If they were targetting IDF installations and troops, I could buy the "resistance" claim. As it is, that is merely a lying excuse for mass murder.


Yes, the poor defenceless nuclear armed state - forced to build civillian colonies on stolen land to defend against the 'armoured might' of countries it now has a peace treaty with. Sounds credible

They're under attack from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Fatah Faction, and half a dozen others. Of their neighbours, they have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan - NOT Syria, and NOT Lebanon, and certainly not with Saudi Arabia, which is both significantly larger and wealthier than Israel, and maybe fifteen minutes away by air.

If I was in their position, I'd build a few nukes too.

You don't understand because you insist on categorizing everyone on one side or the other the same way. Not all the Palestinians are suicide murderers - and only those that are (and their fellow civlian murdering scum) are psychopathic barbarians. But those pieces of shit are, indeed, psychopathic, murdering barbarians. .

I don't class "everyone on one side or the other the same way", hence my use of the term "settler" as oppossed to Israeli. And yes, as generalisations go, its fairly safe to say they are 'fanatical'. One could say the same of the suicide bombers. I don't like to get into the whole high horse of "barbarians" but don't let that stop you.


Nor are all Israelis fanatics. ..

I have never stated that they were and said quite the opposite on occassion.


It would be nice if the Israelis stopped new settlements all together. But however illegal those settlements are, they aren't killing anybody. .

No, just grabbing land, excluding the native population from next or near them, further allowing the seizure of yet more land for "by-pass" roads from which Palestinians are also barred and are shot for coming near. Which leads to hatred, violence and yes - more people getting killed. The death of the native American nations began with "settlements".


The Palestinian suicide murderers are not merely killing people, but deliberately targetting civilians. If they were targetting IDF installations and troops, I could buy the "resistance" claim. As it is, that is merely a lying excuse for mass murder..

And nothing to do with the inability to gain redress via the political channels, the failure of the World in general to intervene, leading to the need to make the Israelis feel what its like to suffer in a similar fashion, by the only means available....dysfunctional, but not incomprehensible.


They're under attack from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Fatah Faction, and half a dozen others.
..

None of whom pose a genuine threat to the existence of the Israeli state now, or in the forseeable future.



Of their neighbours, they have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan - NOT Syria, and NOT Lebanon, and certainly not with Saudi Arabia, which is both significantly larger and wealthier than Israel, and maybe fifteen minutes away by air...

Yes, well we've all seen the military threat the Lebanese state poses. Syria cannot act without Egypt. And you really are grasping at straws by dragging Saudi into it.

And nothing to do with the inability to gain redress via the political channels, the failure of the World in general to intervene, leading to the need to make the Israelis feel what its like to suffer in a similar fashion, by the only means available....dysfunctional, but not incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible, no. Inexcusable, yes.


None of whom pose a genuine threat to the existence of the Israeli state now, or in the forseeable future.


Irrelevant, and also untrue. Hezbollah has a large, reasonably well equipped and reasonably well trained army. They pose a significant threat. But even were that not the case, all of those groups murder innocents as a matter of course. They pose a real and continuing threat to every Israeli.


Yes, well we've all seen the military threat the Lebanese state
poses. Syria cannot act without Egypt. And you really are grasping at straws by dragging Saudi into it.

Bollocks Syria can't act without Egypt, and they have quite a nice military. As for Saudi, it's the 300-pound gorilla of mid-east politics, it has more money than god, a fine and up-to-date military (including the best air force in the region), was involved in Yom Kippur and helped finance the Six Day War. If it's possible for Iran to finance and equip Hezbollah from it's distance away, it's far easier for Saudi to create it's own puppet military.

Saudi isn't likely to act anytime soon because they want to stay in the US' good books, but they're not likely to be sending ambasadors to Tel Aviv either.

Incomprehensible, no. Inexcusable, yes..

Unlike ethnic cleansing, destabilising countries, and beatifying one set of fanatics while creating another....


Irrelevant, and also untrue. Hezbollah has a large, reasonably well equipped and reasonably well trained army. They pose a significant threat. But even were that not the case, all of those groups murder innocents as a matter of course. They pose a real and continuing threat to every Israeli.
..

Much as the IDF does to any Arab within range, and on a more regular and deadly basis. Pot, kettle etc...


Bollocks Syria can't act without Egypt, and they have quite a nice military. ..

They have neither the will, or the means.


As for Saudi, it's the 300-pound gorilla of mid-east politics, it has more money than god, a fine and up-to-date military (including the best air force in the region), was involved in Yom Kippur and helped finance the Six Day War. If it's possible for Iran to finance and equip Hezbollah from it's distance away, it's far easier for Saudi to create it's own puppet military.

Saudi isn't likely to act anytime soon because they want to stay in the US' good books, but they're not likely to be sending ambasadors to Tel Aviv either.

So it isn't, is unlikely to, but it still serves as an excuse....

Unlike ethnic cleansing, destabilising countries, and beatifying one set of fanatics while creating another....

You seem to have quite completely lost perspective on this. I don't support te building of settlements, and I support the creation of a Palestinian Sovereign State. I just cannot support butchering murderers who deliberately target helpless civilians.


Much as the IDF does to any Arab within range, and on a more regular and deadly basis. Pot, kettle etc...


The IDF has never attacked anyone who wasn't either attacking them or about to do so (sorry, just remembered: They airstriked one of Saddam's nuclear facilities. Gee, what an awful thing.) Their COUNTERattacks in Palestine rarely result in fatalities, save when resisted (which, I should note, I don't actually have a problem with, even if going up against Merkavas with rocks does seem somewhat dumb). The IDF Pot isn't clean, but the kettle is pretty damn filthy.


They have neither the will, or the means.


On the will, neither you nor I can say. On the means, they most certainly DO have the capability to take on Israel, they have a larger army, well-trained troops, and are quite well equipped. And no peace treaty.


So it isn't, is unlikely to, but it still serves as an excuse....

No, Saudi remains a threat. They have a few good reasons not to act in the near future, but they retain their utter hostility to Israel, and situations change.

You seem to have quite completely lost perspective on this. I don't support te building of settlements, and I support the creation of a Palestinian Sovereign State. I just cannot support butchering murderers who deliberately target helpless civilians..

Yet you seem rather complacent re Israeli attitudes towards same, not to mention the sundry day to day brutalities of the occupation.


The IDF has never attacked anyone who wasn't either attacking them or about to do so (sorry, just remembered: They airstriked one of Saddam's nuclear facilities. Gee, what an awful thing.) Their COUNTERattacks in Palestine rarely result in fatalities, save when resisted (which, I should note, I don't actually have a problem with, even if going up against Merkavas with rocks does seem somewhat dumb). The IDF Pot isn't clean, but the kettle is pretty damn filthy...


As an force of occupation, their presence is by its nature an act of aggression. In "counterattacking" they seem to have a knack of killing large numbers of civillians. Should an Israeli be killed, the numbers of Arab dead multiply again. This is a fairly clear indication of repression of the population and mass reprisal, and the casualties over the last few decades echo that quite clearly.



On the will, neither you nor I can say. On the means, they most certainly DO have the capability to take on Israel, they have a larger army, well-trained troops, and are quite well equipped. And no peace treaty....

Hopefully they have a more realistic view of their prospects than you do.


No, Saudi remains a threat. They have a few good reasons not to act in the near future, but they retain their utter hostility to Israel, and situations change.


And we might all be eaten by space beings....

anyone who thinks israel has never killed inocent lives, doesnt have a clue.

anyone who thinks israel has never killed inocent lives, doesnt have a clue.

Anyone who condemns the actions of another whom they do not know, and do not understand the circumstances belying their actions, is clueless.

The IDF has never attacked anyone who wasn't either attacking them or about to do so (sorry, just remembered: They airstriked one of Saddam's nuclear facilities. Gee, what an awful thing.) Their COUNTERattacks in Palestine rarely result in fatalities, save when resisted (which, I should note, I don't actually have a problem with, even if going up against Merkavas with rocks does seem somewhat dumb). The IDF Pot isn't clean, but the kettle is pretty damn filthy.


The IDF has killed plenty of people who represented no danger at all, notably several unarmed western peace activists who were clearly marked as peace protesters and were recognised as such by the IDF.

A cynical person might think they bump the odd one off to make other activists fear for their lives... kinda like terrorism.

The IDF has killed plenty of people who represented no danger at all, notably several unarmed western peace activists who were clearly marked as peace protesters and were recognised as such by the IDF.

A cynical person might think they bump the odd one off to make other activists fear for their lives... kinda like terrorism.

It's possible. And I never said they haven't killed innocent people - but I prefer to grant people the benefit of the doubt, where possible. I don't belive the IDF has ever deliberately gone out to do so.

That includes the Palestinians, btw. It's just impossible to grant such doubt when a suicide murderer deliberately vapourizes himself on a bus full of innocents.

Yet you seem rather complacent re Israeli attitudes towards same, not to mention the sundry day to day brutalities of the occupation.

No, I'm not. I'd much rather see Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza and a functional, peaceful, Palestinian Government there. I'm just willing to acknowledge that it's been primarily the actions of the Palestinians that have prevented that over the last two decades.


As an force of occupation, their presence is by its nature an act of aggression. In "counterattacking" they seem to have a knack of killing large numbers of civillians. Should an Israeli be killed, the numbers of Arab dead multiply again. This is a fairly clear indication of repression of the population and mass reprisal, and the casualties over the last few decades echo that quite clearly.


Bullshit. Occupation is not aggression, though it is often the product of same. As for casualties, if the Palestinians stopped attacking, the Israelis would stop counterattacking. The opposite, however, is not true.


Hopefully they have a more realistic view of their prospects than you do.


I have no doubt they have exactly the same view I do. As things currently stand, they could not defeat the IDF. Why do you think they're not attacking right now? This in no way reduces their status as a major threat. If the IDF gives them the opportunity to strike, they probably will.

And we might all be eaten by space beings....

You can make stupid comments all you like, Saudi remains a threat to Israel.

It's possible. And I never said they haven't killed innocent people - but I prefer to grant people the benefit of the doubt, where possible. I don't belive the IDF has ever deliberately gone out to do so.

That includes the Palestinians, btw. It's just impossible to grant such doubt when a suicide murderer deliberately vapourizes himself on a bus full of innocents.

Tom Hurndall (British) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall) - shot in the head by a sniper while shielding children away from the main action.

The IDF initally tried to sweep it under the carpet, then fabricated stories aboiut the incident which were later proved false, and later tried to claim the death was due to pneumonia (he did not die immediately). Only under international pressure for killing a forign national did they agree to allow prosecution. In his defense the soldier maintained that the IDF were alloed to fire freely in Rafah.


James Miller (British) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_%28filmmaker%29)
Miller was making on the day of his death depicts Miller and his colleagues leaving the home of a Palestinian family in the Rafah refugee camp after dark, carrying a white flag. They had walked about 20 meters from the veranda when the first shot rings out. For 13 seconds, there is silence broken only by Shah’s cry: "We are British journalists." Then comes the second shot, which killed Miller. He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 meters away. Immediately after the shooting, the IDF said that Miller had been shot in the back during crossfire. It later retracted the incorrect assertion about him being shot in the back. There was no crossfire according to some witnesses and there is none to be heard on the APTN tape.
On March 9, 2005, the IDF announced the closing of the Miller case, announcing that the soldier believed responsible for the shooting would not be indicted. The army said military police had carefully investigated the incident but had been unable to establish the soldier's guilt. "The findings of the military police show that an Israel Defense Forces lieutenant, the commanding officer of the IDF force at the site, allegedly fired his weapon in breach of IDF Rules of Engagement," a statement said. "However, it is not legally possible to link this shooting to the gunshot sustained by Mr. Miller." The army did say that the soldier would be disciplined for misusing his weapon. It did not elaborate.
The Israeli soldier who had fired was identified as Lieutenant Haib, is still in the army and has not been prosecuted or disciplined since the shooting. The Israeli Judge Advocate General recommended that he be disciplined but his commanding officer, Brigadier General Guy Tzur, overturned the decision. Investigations found the shot was precise as from a sniper. [6] Independent investigator and former weapons inspector Chris Cobb-Smith found there was no way the soldier fired by accident. [7]


Rachel Corrie (American) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie)

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt.

Given how the IDF has made claims proven to be false about the first two examples I gave I view their version as a tad suspicious.

Brian Avery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Avery)
(non-fatal shooting in the face)
e weren't two blocks from our apartment when an Israeli convoy of two vehicles, a tank and an armored personnel carrier, drove up the street from the direction that we were walking from. And so as we heard them coming closer, we stepped off to the side of the road to let them pass by, which was again, you know, a very, very typical situation for us to encounter the soldiers, even during the curfew, and for them just to pass on by ... And so we stood to the side of the road, we put our hands out to show we didn't have any weapons and weren't, you know, threatening them in any way. And I was wearing a fluorescent vest to, you know, try to make ourselves as visible as possible. And once they drove within about 30 meters of where we were standing, they opened fire with their machine guns and continued shooting for a very long time, probably shooting about, you know, 30 rounds of ammunition, which is quite a lot when you see them in action. And I was struck in the face with one of the bullets and, you know, was knocked to the ground immediately

No, I'm not. I'd much rather see Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza and a functional, peaceful, Palestinian Government there. I'm just willing to acknowledge that it's been primarily the actions of the Palestinians that have prevented that over the last two decades..

Were it not for the continued settlement building in that period, that might be believable.



Bullshit. Occupation is not aggression, though it is often the product of same.
..

Really? I believe large tracts of Eastern and Western Europe, China, and various others would beg to differ. I was also unaware that building civillian colonies on land stolen from the local population was not an aggressive act, let alone the checkpoints and the settler only roads and areas.


As for casualties, if the Palestinians stopped attacking, the Israelis would stop counterattacking. The opposite, however, is not true.

A "counter-attack" would imply a response to an attack. However most Israeli raids are designed to inflict collective punishment on the population, hence the great scale of death and destruction. Its about subduing the "native".

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;12007167]
You can make stupid comments all you like, Saudi remains a threat to Israel.

As do meterorites, and the aforementioned space beasts.

As do meterorites, and the aforementioned space beasts.

I was just going to let this thread die, but I really need to know, why are you being so obtuse about this? Saudi Arabia has never changed it's policy that Israel should be destroyed. It has almost four times Israel's population, a military recently enhanced by American technology, views itself as the centre of the Islamic and Arab world, and at it's closes point is less than one hundred kilometers from Israel.

How can this possibly be less than a major threat?

..., and at it's closes point is less than one hundred kilometers from Israel.yeah, 16, i hope the lazy saudis make use of this proximity one day

I was just going to let this thread die, but I really need to know, why are you being so obtuse about this? Saudi Arabia has never changed it's policy that Israel should be destroyed. It has almost four times Israel's population, a military recently enhanced by American technology, views itself as the centre of the Islamic and Arab world, and at it's closes point is less than one hundred kilometers from Israel.

How can this possibly be less than a major threat?

Its a monarchy far more concerned with internal security and its own wealth rather than some half arsed escapade in Israels direction.


Does this sound like something that comes from a state that "has never changed its policy that Israel should be destroyed"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

Better luck hyping the space beasts.

they should of continued with the strike. they gave fair warning, but instead of leaving the people decided to become part of the target.

Its a monarchy far more concerned with internal security and its own wealth rather than some half arsed escapade in Israels direction.


Does this sound like something that comes from a state that "has never changed its policy that Israel should be destroyed"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

Better luck hyping the space beasts.

Fair enough. And if it's ever signed, I'll accept that Saudi has ceased to be a threat.

But until then it remains probably the largest threat Israel currently has.

they should of continued with the strike. they gave fair warning, but instead of leaving the people decided to become part of the target.
They should have continued...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pure speculation on my part: If Israel had solid proof that they were using the houses to store weapons and were militants. I think Israel should have fired on the houses. As for the human sheilds, I'm with President Bush when he said that if you're protecting and supporting the terrorists you are against us. If the civilians knowingly were protecting them and chose to be human shields, then too bad. Israel should have taken the shots.

hell yes.