NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html?hpid=topnews

Independent experts have pinpointed what they believe to be the Euphrates River site in Syria that was bombed by Israel last month, and satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction roughly similar in design to a North Korean reactor capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year, the experts say.

Photographs of the site taken before the secret Sept. 6 airstrike depict an isolated compound that includes a tall, boxy structure similar to the type of building used to house a gas-graphite reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for a reactor, say experts David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

Looks like syria was trying to do something they should not have been doing. Looks like we officially have a repeat of the 1981 attack on the IRaqi reactor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html?hpid=topnews



Looks like syria was trying to do something they should not have been doing. Looks like we officially have a repeat of the 1981 attack on the IRaqi reactor.Except this is a whole lot easier to execute.

And?

And?

it justifies the IDF's reason for bombing it?

it justifies the IDF's reason for bombing it?
Erm, not really. Syria are NNPT members, you know...

At least they know that they can cross into Syria and blow stuff up, without getting shot down.

So if Syria ever decides to go nuclear there'll be "Osirak pt2".

Erm, not really. Syria are NNPT members, you know...

Under the NNPT, if Syria wanted to have nuclear power, they have to declare their intentions and um...they didn't.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.

Does that mean you condemn Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel?

it justifies the IDF's reason for bombing it?
You mean morally, right? Because legally, no it doesn't.

All that's happened is one state has crossed internationally recognised boundaries and attacked another state.

Does that mean you condemn Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel?
Hezb'allah is not a state.

Hezb'allah is not a state.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.

I take that to mean that no one has justification to bomb anything on foreign soil. That includes Hezbollah.

They're bombing people who, if you'll recall, swear to kill them and steal their land, they're bombing their means of producing weapons of mass destruction?

Hey, we should go help them.

Hey, we should go help them.
If you're going to weigh in with a comment like that, it would be helpful if you defined who the 'we' are that you're talking about.

They're bombing people who, if you'll recall, swear to kill them and steal their land, they're bombing their means of producing weapons of mass destruction?

A nuclear reactor really cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.

I take that to mean that no one has justification to bomb anything on foreign soil. That includes Hezbollah.

Do you want peope to add a disclaimer to the end of every statement they make? "And I, of course, oppose all forms of terrorism".

The topic is State vs. State agression. Bringing in non-State actors to the equation, gives a false result.

The topic is State vs. State agression. Bringing in non-State actors to the equation, gives a false result.

Actually...Hezbollah is a state actor for they are the lead party in Lebanon.

Does that mean you condemn Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel?
What are you trying to prove?

Just because someone is against violent idiots on one side of an argument, doesn’t mean they support violent idiots on the other side.

it justifies the IDF's reason for bombing it?

IDF doesn't need justification, they're still at war with Syria. Plus Syria didn't complain, publicly, about it.

What are you trying to prove?

Just because someone is against violent idiots on one side of an argument, doesn’t mean they support violent idiots on the other side.

I see you have not followed UB much have you?

IDF doesn't need justification, they're still at war with Syria. Plus Syria didn't complain, publicly, about it.

Now that's a good point.

responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand. As long as Syria passes on the responsibility to others, they pass on the authority to others as well.

Actually...Hezbollah is a state actor for they are the lead party in Lebanon.

No. That's not the issue here. Your example is saying that the Republic of Ireland has attacked the United Kingdom as Sinn Fein is an active and somewhat influential political party in the Republic of Ireland.

Its a silly way to look at things and has nothing to do with the situation at hand: that the State of Israel attacked the State of Syria.

Actually...Hezbollah is a state actor for they are the lead party in Lebanon.


Which means nada, as they aren't the government, therefore they aren't a "state actor". You'll find thats the way its defined, historically.

And why do you expect anyone to start cheering? Because a rogue state that runs apartheid provinces bombs a dictatorship and is "right" in doing so?

No. That's not the issue here.

Actually...it is an issue in reality.

Actually...it is an issue in reality.

No, its not a fucking issue in reality because they aren't the Government in Lebanon. Now get down the Mc Donalds happy meal menu from your wall that has "Historian" finger-painted on it, and burn the fucking thing.

Actually...it is an issue in reality.

Now you're not even making a point. Now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!

At the very least Khadgar made an actual discussable point.

I see you have not followed UB much have you?
I know he rants a lot, and I know many posters don’t have a high opinion of him. I don’t know if UB supports Hezbollah or not, he can speak, or post, for himself.

Anyways, as I said. Violent idiots and those who support them are nutters, no matter what ideology they support.

Now you're not even making a point. Now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!

At the very least Khadgar made an actual discussable point.

Don't get used to it.

Besides, Israel doesn't care about legal niceties when nuclear weapons are involved. If bombing that reactor would have resulted in an all-out war, they might have gone ahead with it.

Besides, Israel doesn't care about legal niceties when nuclear weapons are involved. If bombing that reactor would have resulted in an all-out war, they might have gone ahead with it.

So be it and this should be done with Iran. Sometimes things are worth risking.

Don't get used to it.

A stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

They're bombing people who, if you'll recall, swear to kill them and steal their land, they're bombing their means of producing weapons of mass destruction?

Hey, we should go help them.

do you want me to deal with you? seriously you want me to start ranting about arab haters

Now that's a good point.

ya but what if the intel had been wrong, who would they explain they bombed the crap out of a 4th world country(note not 3rd world)

Anybody found this on Google Maps?

So be it and this should be done with Iran. Sometimes things are worth risking.

Uh huh. And if the consequence of bombing Iran was more conflict than if it hadn't been bombed? Still worth it? Then one can argue that reducing all first world powers including the United States to a third world status to prevent future escalations of war should be done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html?hpid=topnews



Looks like syria was trying to do something they should not have been doing. Looks like we officially have a repeat of the 1981 attack on the IRaqi reactor.

Props to Israel for doing what needs to be done and not waiting around until the enemy strikes first. Offense is the best defense.

Which means nada, as they aren't the government, therefore they aren't a "state actor". You'll find thats the way its defined, historically.

And why do you expect anyone to start cheering? Because a rogue state that runs apartheid provinces bombs a dictatorship and is "right" in doing so?

I don't know which part of this to start with, so I'll just apply one response to the whole thing:

ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

Then I'll start cheering :D

Uh huh. And if the consequence of bombing Iran was more conflict than if it hadn't been bombed? Still worth it?

If the result is victory over the moolah-cracy and the destruction of the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran, you betcha.

Then one can argue that reducing all first world powers including the United States to a third world status to prevent future escalations of war should be done.

If you think any nation or combination of nations on this earth is capable of pulling that off, I have an oil field in Iraq you might want to buy. Inspected and approved by Halliburton.

Props to Israel for doing what needs to be done and not waiting around until the enemy strikes first. Offense is the best defense.

You assume that Syria would strike first with nuclear weapons, against Israel which they know to have more nukes and a superior air-force.

Apart from "they are the enemy" ... what reason do you have for thinking that?

If the result is victory over the moolah-cracy and the destruction of the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran, you betcha.

Right. So victory over ideologues is justifiable regardless of consequence. I can now justifiably gun you down.


If you think any nation or combination of nations on this earth is capable of pulling that off, I have an oil field in Iraq you might want to buy. Inspected and approved by Halliburton.

There's a lot that can be done to deteriorate relationships between nuclear powers to the point where they will destroy each other. For a lot less effort than actually destroying them myself.

Of course you can just plug your hands in your ears and sing "patriotic" songs. I don't expect any different from your kind.

Uh huh. And if the consequence of bombing Iran was more conflict than if it hadn't been bombed? Still worth it? Then one can argue that reducing all first world powers including the United States to a third world status to prevent future escalations of war should be done.

Well let's say Iran exports their new found weapons and or tech to one of their state sponsored terrorist groups. They then in turn light up NYC or any other big international city. Would it then be worth it to bomb Iran until they say uncle? Is an ounce of prevention worth more the a pound of cure in this case?

You assume that Syria would strike first with nuclear weapons, against Israel which they know to have more nukes and a superior air-force.

Apart from "they are the enemy" ... what reason do you have for thinking that?

The real danger is the export of any nuclear weapons and or tech.

...of course Israel didn't have a covert nuclear weapons development programme. How are what they did and what Syria or Iran is doing any different?

do you want me to deal with you? seriously you want me to start ranting about arab haters

Let me get this straight. Why are you goingo to start ranting about "arab haters" when no one here is expressing hatred for arabs?

ya but what if the intel had been wrong, who would they explain they bombed the crap out of a 4th world country(note not 3rd world)

Um...there is only theird world country. Is there proof that there are 4th world countries?

...of course Israel didn't have a covert nuclear weapons development programme. How are what they did and what Syria or Iran is doing any different?

Israel is also not party to the NPT. Syria is.

Israel is also not party to the NPT. Syria is.

Because it is essentially a rogue nation with WMDs.

Well let's say Iran exports their new found weapons and or tech to one of their state sponsored terrorist groups. They then in turn light up NYC or any other big international city. Would it then be worth it to bomb Iran until they say uncle? Is an ounce of prevention worth more the a pound of cure in this case?

You do realize that fission weaponry can be traced back by their radiological nature don't you?

As for your idea of "strike them first on the off chance they might strike us" sure, that might be worth it. But only if you'll let me shoot you on the suspicion that you might shoot me first.

As for trading the tech, pah! Pakistan, Korea, Europe, even your oh so precious United States have all been implicated in dealing with that kind of trade in one form or another.

Because it is essentially a rogue nation with WMDs.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
A tad dramatic perhaps, but Israel did covertly develop a nuclear program, attempt to hide that fact from the world, then imprisoned (and are still detaining) a man who highlighted the nuclear program to the world.

As to the NNPT, Britain the US and other signatories are developing new nuclear weapons systems, without making any moves towards disarmament. That’s going against the first two pillars of the treaty.

See the whole problem with this 'preventative strike' policy is that the one country most likely to use nuclear weapons on another country, and the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on another country is also the country that would go completely apeshit if other countries used it's own standards of 'imminent threat' on itself. Worst of all, I keep my stuff there. :(

A tad dramatic perhaps, but Israel did covertly develop a nuclear program, attempt to hide that fact from the world, then imprisoned (and are still detaining) a man who highlighted the nuclear program to the world.

And what's your point? They are not signatories so they do not have to declare intentions. Syria on the other hand is a signatory and by the words of the NPT must state publicly their intentions and they did not do so.

As to the NNPT, Britain the US and other signatories are developing new nuclear weapons systems, without making any moves towards disarmament. That’s going against the first two pillars of the treaty.

The first pillar deals with non-proliferation. Meaning we are not to encourage other nations who do not posses nuclear weapons to pursue them. Those who do not possess the weapons agree to not receive or manufacture equipment to pursue them.

As to the Second Pillar, there are different interpretations to what Article VI actually means.

And what’s your point?
My point is that not signing the NNPT and covertly developing nuclear weapons are the actions of a ‘rogue’ state; a state that is acting in a dangerous and threatening manner.

If any nation apart from Israel did this, Western leaders would shit a brick, and posters such as yourself, New Mitanni and Marrakech II would be calling for pre-emptive strikes and/or immediate action.

As to the Second Pillar, there are different interpretations to what Article VI actually means.
It’s deliberately vague, but I would say that developing entirely new nuclear weapons systems hardly amounts to disarmament. Yes, states can get around this with the vagueness of the second pillar, using weasely legal loopholes and the like, but it goes directly against the spirit of the treaty.

My point is that not signing the NNPT and covertly developing nuclear weapons are the actions of a ‘rogue’ state; a state that is acting in a dangerous and threatening manner.

As opposed to Israel's neighbors who attacked them unprovokedly at least twice?

If any nation apart from Israel did this, Western leaders would shit a brick, and posters such as yourself, New Mitanni and Marrakech II would be calling for pre-emptive strikes and/or immediate action.

I'd rather see diplomacy take place and not military action but thanks for telling me what I would do.

It’s deliberately vague, but I would say that developing entirely new nuclear weapons systems hardly amounts to disarmament. Yes, states can get around this with the vagueness of the second pillar, using weasely legal loopholes and the like, but it goes directly against the spirit of the treaty.

Well you do have a point but then...when there's an opening people will exploit it regardless. Nothing we can do to really stop it short of actually changing the treaty.

As opposed to Israel's neighbors who attacked them unprovokedly at least twice?


:rolleyes:

As opposed to Israel’s neighbors who attacked them unprovokedly at least twice?
Firstly, what has that got to do with anything? The actions of Israel’s neighbours, which are also pretty fucked up, doesn’t lesson the impact of Israel’s actions, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry.

Secondly, nobody is blameless in the Middle East, at least as far as state-actors go. Israel, as you well know, is not some innocent nation, being assailed on all sides by evil states. It has taken action that is itself illegal under international law, can be blamed for the idiotic violence in that region as much as Syria, Lebanon, etc.

From my point of view, they’re all mindless idiots with a death-wish.

I’d rather see diplomacy take place and not military action but thanks for telling me what I would do.
Well, apologies if I am misrepresenting you, but IIRC, you (not as much as New Mitanni and Marrakech II, it must be said) seem to be quite vocal in your support for military action against ‘rogue’ states; especially states that seem to be developing nuclear weaponry.

Well you do have a point but then...when there’s an opening people will exploit it regardless. Nothing we can do to really stop it short of actually changing the treaty.
Unfortunately.

The whole thing’s a bit of a farce.

Firstly, what has that got to do with anything? The actions of Israel’s neighbours, which are also pretty fucked up, doesn’t lesson the impact of Israel’s actions, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry.

But then you have to look at it from Israel's point of view. They have been attacked unprovokedly twice and nearly three times. Their neighbors do not like the existence in the state of Israel and would like nothing more to see its extermination. It only makes sense that they will be jumpy and attack potential nuclear sites within the region. It explains the attack in Iraq back in the early '80s and now their recent attack in Syria.

Secondly, nobody is blameless in the Middle East, at least as far as state-actors go. Israel, as you well know, is not some innocent nation, being assailed on all sides by evil states. It has taken action that is itself illegal under international law, can be blamed for the idiotic violence in that region as much as Syria, Lebanon, etc.

Agreed.

From my point of view, they’re all mindless idiots with a death-wish.

Well put.

Well, apologies if I am misrepresenting you, but IIRC, you (not as much as New Mitanni and Marrakech II, it must be said) seem to be quite vocal in your support for military action against ‘rogue’ states; especially states that seem to be developing nuclear weaponry.

I much prefer to see diplomacy work (as it supposedly did with North Korea). Even during the lead up to the Iraq War, I prayed that diplomacy would work.

Unfortunately.

The whole thing’s a bit of a farce.

Agreed.

I figure they're using Israel as a scapegoat for their own internal difficulties. The Jews make a nice boogeyman for 'em.

I figure they're using Israel as a scapegoat for their own internal difficulties. The Jews make a nice boogeyman for 'em.

That's also true statement.

But then you have to look at it from Israel’s point of view. They have been attacked unprovokedly twice and nearly three times. Their neighbors do not like the existence in the state of Israel and would like nothing more to see its extermination. It only makes sense that they will be jumpy and attack potential nuclear sites within the region. It explains the attack in Iraq back in the early ‘80s and now their recent attack in Syria.
Just to stop any confusion, which ‘unprovoked attacks’ are you talking about?

I much prefer to see diplomacy work (as it supposedly did with North Korea). Even during the lead up to the Iraq War, I prayed that diplomacy would work.
Well, if so, then my profuse apologies.

Just to stop any confusion, which ‘unprovoked attacks’ are you talking about?

The arab attack in '48 and the Yom Kipper War.

Well, if so, then my profuse apologies.

Not a problem.

No one is actually sure that this was a nuclear reactor. In fact, they are not even sure that this was the place that was bombed by the Israelis.

This is a big stretch for Israeli apologists, in my opinion. If the photos are of the bomb site, and if they are interpreted to mean that that was a nuclear reactor, then Israel might have a valid reason for bombing another country.

No one is actually sure that this was a nuclear reactor. In fact, they are not even sure that this was the place that was bombed by the Israelis.

This is a big stretch for Israeli apologists, in my opinion. If the photos are of the bomb site, and if they are interpreted to mean that that was a nuclear reactor, then Israel might have a valid reason for bombing another country.

Once again they're still at war with Syria, they don't need a valid reason, they just need explosives they want to get rid of.

Once again they're still at war with Syria, they don't need a valid reason, they just need explosives they want to get rid of.

I was thinking more in terms of valid moral reason. In terms of realpolitik, Israel has valid reason to carpet bomb the whole country. Sorry for the confusion.

No, its not a fucking issue in reality because they aren't the Government in Lebanon. Now get down the Mc Donalds happy meal menu from your wall that has "Historian" finger-painted on it, and burn the fucking thing.
ROTFL!!!

As always Global Security.org has an interesting piece on the date in question:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/070906-airstrike.htm

Including some oddities:


# "dramatic satellite imagery" - the types of activity associated with nuclear weapons development, particularly at the early stages of the program, are precisely the sorts of things that are not going to produce dramatic satellite imagery, which is why North Korea's uranium program is so vexing for the United States.
# "primarily from Israel" - the reliance on such liasion sourced intelligence that could not be independently verified was one of the central problems with the Iraq WMD intelligence failure, and either evidence is "primarily from Israel" [ie, HUMINT] or it is independtly knowable by the United States based on "dramatic satellite imagery" but it is difficult to comprehend how both statements could be true.
# "restricted to a few senior officials" - this part of the story is designed to explain to other reporters why their sources are unable to confirm any of the details of this report
# "arrival at the Syrian port of Tartus" - this is not a large facility, and this news story would have us believe that Israeli intelligence has intimate knowledge of unloading activities at this port, a collection capability that was willingly compromised here
# "labeled as cement" -- cement is normally transported as a bulk powder, and less frequently in recent decades in bags -- neither form of transport would usefully conceal nuclear related components, and labeling some other means of transport [eg, standard 40-foot containters] as cement would be so patently false as to immediately draw suspicion to the shipment.
# "on the Euphrates River, close to the Turkish border" -- the implication, though not over assertion, is that over the course of three days Israeli intelligence was able to track the shipment as it travelled half-way across Syria, or that Israeli surveillance of Syria is so comprehensive that the shipment was detected upon arrival -- either of which is very impressive and hard to believe.
# "using it to extract uranium from phosphates" - Syria has a phosphate industry, which supports the production of fertilizer and phosphoric acid. Between 1996 and 2001 Syria operated a pilot plant at Homs for the purification of phosphoric acid, in order to remove the uranium contanmination so that the phosphoric acid could be used for food processing. This project was financed by the UN Developement Program, supported by the IAEA, and not bombed by Israel.

I'd rather see diplomacy take place and not military action but thanks for telling me what I would do.
oh indeed. That's why you created so many threads calling on Israel to open diplomatic relations with Syria and find a solution to this alleged Nuclear reactor - and not just wait til they bombed the crap out of it and then gloat over it and link justifications for Israel's violence after the fact.
Because you always demand Israel to seek diplomatic solutions first, don't you?
don't you?

No one is actually sure that this was a nuclear reactor.

Well, what the hell else is it, then? A chocolate chip factory?

Not to sound uneducated or like an obnoxious clod. I just wanted to work the phrase "chocolate chip factory" into the comparison with a nuclear reactor. Because if it were a nuclear reactor, wouldn't the Syrians want to make it look like a chocolate chip factory instead?

Well, what the hell else is it, then? A chocolate chip factory?
mmm...chocolate chips...

Well, what the hell else is it, then? A chocolate chip factory?

Not to sound uneducated or like an obnoxious clod. I just wanted to work the phrase "chocolate chip factory" into the comparison with a nuclear reactor. Because if it were a nuclear reactor, wouldn't the Syrians want to make it look like a chocolate chip factory instead?

Well milk factory has been done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html?hpid=topnews



Looks like syria was trying to do something they should not have been doing. Looks like we officially have a repeat of the 1981 attack on the IRaqi reactor.

By that logic, London police was right to shoot Jean Charles de Menezes. After all, he did look roughly like an Arab... :rolleyes:

By that logic, London police was right to shoot Jean Charles de Menezes. After all, he did look roughly like an Arab... :rolleyes:

Now you are trying to build a strawman argument.

Now you are trying to build a strawman argument.

No really... Isreal attacked another country without any legal authority whatsoever, with the justification that they had a photograph of something that roughly looks like a reactor (as has been pointed out, reactors usually cannot even be used to produce nuclear weapons, they are designed to produce energy).
London police shoot someone without any legal grounds because he looks like he might belong to an certain ethnicity.

In both cases, the attackers have no legal or moral ground whatsoever. It's called a comparison.

No really... Isreal attacked another country without any legal authority whatsoever, with the justification that they had a photograph of something that roughly looks like a reactor (as has been pointed out, reactors usually cannot even be used to produce nuclear weapons, they are designed to produce energy).
London police shoot someone without any legal grounds because he looks like he might belong to an certain ethnicity.

In both cases, the attackers have no legal or moral ground whatsoever. It's called a comparison.

Israel has legal authority, your comparison is invalid.

No really... Isreal attacked another country without any legal authority whatsoever,

You forget that they are still at war with Syria.

London police shoot someone without any legal grounds because he looks like he might belong to an certain ethnicity.

In both cases, the attackers have no legal or moral ground whatsoever. It's called a comparison.

You are still trying to build a strawman.

No really... Isreal attacked another country without any legal authority whatsoever, with the justification that they had a photograph of something that roughly looks like a reactor (as has been pointed out, reactors usually cannot even be used to produce nuclear weapons, they are designed to produce energy).

Is it not true that the nuclear waste from any reactor can be used in making "Dirty Bombs" I'm not quite sure if you would classify these as "Nuclear Weapons". What needs to be done is to make it a fair fight. Give the Arab nations nuclear weapons and let the Israelis keep theirs. Then we have a MAD scenario. Neither side will do anything because the other side will respond, and they will both end up dead. ;)

I don't (blather)

The usual emotional non-answer from the islamaphobic IDF cheer leading team. Well done.



If the result is victory over the moolah-cracy and the destruction of the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran, you betcha.

Two right wing buzz words in one smug war-hawking sentence....I think you get a "Go Giullani" t-shirt posted out to you for that one


As opposed to Israel's neighbors who attacked them unprovokedly at least twice? .

Even if so,I think 40 years of illegal occupation without being under sanctions and hijacking the majority of the waters of the Jordan even that one out, meself.

Is it not true that the nuclear waste from any reactor can be used in making "Dirty Bombs" I'm not quite sure if you would classify these as "Nuclear Weapons". What needs to be done is to make it a fair fight. Give the Arab nations nuclear weapons and let the Israelis keep theirs. Then we have a MAD scenario. Neither side will do anything because the other side will respond, and they will both end up dead. ;)

I doubt the Syrians seriously want to destroy Israel, they're too good of a scapegoat. They probably want to strong arm them into giving back some of the territory they lost in 67 though.

So be it and this should be done with Iran. Sometimes things are worth risking.

I've got a better idea. howabout we just drop everyone who thinks we should bomb Iran out of planes, over Iran?

I have been watching the posts to this thread for some time now and it is clear that many of the contributors prefer to yield to the collective ignorance of the intelligencia. LOOK AT A MAP! The land mass held by the State of Israel is about 1% of the land mass within the borders of the Arab nations of the Middle East. There are less than 6 million Jews living within the borders now under its control. There are over 300,000,000 Arabs collectively under the banner of Allah living in those hostile nations. Only the governments of Egypt and Jordan acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Most of the citizens of Egypt and Jordan do not. Israel exists under the most hostile of circumstances. They have every right to protect themselves from every single perceived threat to its continued existence. Has Israel made mistakes in its defense of its people and nation... yes. But Israelis want peace. They are tired of the continual wars initiated against them. The Palestinians have a very real plight. It is sad. It is a crime. But it is not a crime instigated by the Jewish people of Israel. There are refugee camps for one reason. The Arab countries who have continually attacked Israel since its UN mandated creation have refused to assimilate the arab refugees their hostilities created within their own borders.

I know this will rankle many who are posting on this thread. I don't care. It is only the truth that sets men free.

I've got a better idea. howabout we just drop everyone who thinks we should bomb Iran out of planes, over Iran?

What did Iran ever do to you?

Israel is also not party to the NPT. Syria is.

Oh I get it! One nation signs a treaty so we can hold them to it and say they are wrong. The other nation doesn't sign the treaty but does the exact same thing so they are right. Now you've made it so very clear. The key is not to sign any treaties because then you can be held to a higher standard. So legally you're right but morally it's 6 or a half dozen. I dislike Syria completely, but fair is fair

The arab attack in ‘48 and the Yom Kipper War.
Again, the Yom Kippur War was, as I understand it, a reaction to previous military action by Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Even if the justification for war is ludicrous, you could hardly describe it as ‘unprovoked’, as if Israel are completely innocent.

As to the 1948 conflict, the countries fighting against Israel had opposed the creation of Israel from the start. So, once again, even if one would disagree with the Arab League’s objection to the creation of Israel and be highly against the violence of 1948, it’s a misnomer to call the attacks ‘unprovoked’.

The usual emotional non-answer from the islamaphobic IDF cheer leading team. Well done.

The usual ad hominem insult from the intellectually bankrupt and morally benighted. Much like the typical restaurant steak order, neither well done nor rare.

Two right wing buzz words in one smug war-hawking sentence....I think you get a "Go Giullani" t-shirt posted out to you for that one

FYI, I am in fact supporting Giuliani. So thanks for the free shirt. You're cordially invited to watch his inauguration come January 2009 ;)

The usual ad hominem insult from the intellectually bankrupt and morally benighted. Much like the typical restaurant steak order, neither well done nor rare.



FYI, I am in fact supporting Giuliani. So thanks for the free shirt. You're cordially invited to watch his inauguration come January 2009 ;)

Julie doesn't have a prayer, he's too liberal for the wingnuts.

Is it not true that the nuclear waste from any reactor can be used in making "Dirty Bombs" I'm not quite sure if you would classify these as "Nuclear Weapons". What needs to be done is to make it a fair fight. Give the Arab nations nuclear weapons and let the Israelis keep theirs. Then we have a MAD scenario. Neither side will do anything because the other side will respond, and they will both end up dead. ;)

Actually, one side--Israel--will end up losing a much larger percentage of its population than the other, like about 100%, and certain leading elements on the other side have shown they don't care about their own losses and care even less about killing non-combatants. MAD only works if it's mutual. IMO such mutuality doesn't exist and isn't likely to come into existence.

Julie doesn't have a prayer, he's too liberal for the wingnuts.

The "wingnuts" have less influence in the GOP than you think. Rudy is right on the most important issues--defense and national security--and that will outweigh his less conservative social positions. The fact that he's still even in the race at this point, let alone leading the pack, shows that social conservatives and religious voters aren't uniting against him, and that GOP voters as a whole aren't going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As to the 1948 conflict, the countries fighting against Israel had opposed the creation of Israel from the start. So, once again, even if one would disagree with the Arab League’s objection to the creation of Israel and be highly against the violence of 1948, it’s a misnomer to call the attacks ‘unprovoked’.

Opposition to the creation of a state of Israel is no excuse to attack it.

Opposition to the creation of a state of Israel is no excuse to attack it.

Agreed Corny

The "wingnuts" have less influence in the GOP than you think. Rudy is right on the most important issues--defense and national security--and that will outweigh his less conservative social positions. The fact that he's still even in the race at this point, let alone leading the pack, shows that social conservatives and religious voters aren't uniting against him, and that GOP voters as a whole aren't going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Is that why they're pissing themselves over the thought of Dobson running?

Opposition to the creation of a state of Israel is no excuse to attack it.
I’m not saying it is. Read what I’ve posted.

Even if opposition to the creation of Israel is a poor excuse to attack it (and I agree that it is), it is still provocation, in the eyes of the Arab League. That provocation my be completely warranted, and the reaction to the provocation completely wrong, but one cannot argue that there is no provocation.

That’s ludicrous.

Unless you believe that the Arab League attacked Israel for shits and giggles. They were provoked.

I’m not saying it is. Read what I’ve posted.

Even if opposition to the creation of Israel is a poor excuse to attack it (and I agree that it is), it is still provocation, in the eyes of the Arab League. That provocation my be completely warranted, and the reaction to the provocation completely wrong, but one cannot argue that there is no provocation.

That’s ludicrous.

Unless you believe that the Arab League attacked Israel for shits and giggles.

They attacked Israel to destroy it. They failed. All three times.

They attacked Israel to destroy it. They failed. All three times.
Yadda yadda yadda. Care to make a point?

Why did they attack Israel? Was it completely out of the blue?

No, of course it wasn’t. They were provoked into attacking Israel. They were wrong to do so, but they were provoked all the same.

They were not provoked. It was their own religious expansionism. It had nothing to do with a provocation by Israel.

They were not provoked. It was their own religious expansionism. It had nothing to do with a provocation by Israel.
So Israel’s actions prior to the Yom Kippur War had nothing whatsoever to do with the Yom Kippur War?

I’d expect better off of an omnipotent being.

As I’ve made clear several times in this thread already, I have no sympathy whatsoever with any state that commits violent acts against another state, never mind what fanciful belief-system said state holds dear.

I don’t think that the actions of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, et al are justified or morally correct, I just think it’s very naive attitude to think that Israel’s inception and subsequent actions would have no repercussions in the area.

I also have no truck with the ‘Israel-can-do-no-wrong’ crowd.

I don't contend that "Israel has done no wrong." They have. However, the land mass of Israel is 1% of the mass of it's immediate neighbors. The population of Jews in Israel is 5.5 million verses over 400,000,000 million in the region who are Arab Muslims who have said there intent is to push the Jews into the sea.

The Palestinian plight is a creation of the surrounding nations as a result of their own aggression against Israel and then refusing to care for their Arab brothers who their own action displaced. The Palestinian plight is a tragedy that the Arab majority must accept much of the blame for. Instead of dealing with the problems on the ground in a constructive way, lies about the history of this tragedy are perpetrated as truth. This also is a crime.

Yadda yadda yadda. Care to make a point?

Why did they attack Israel? Was it completely out of the blue?

The first time? Yea it was. The Yom Kippur War was a surprise attack done by Syria and Egypt. The 6 Day War was a pre-emptive strike due to the actions of Jordan and Egypt.

No, of course it wasn’t. They were provoked into attacking Israel. They were wrong to do so, but they were provoked all the same.

Still wrong to attack. They could have worked with it instead of attacking. As the old addage goes, violence begots violence.

I don't contend that "Israel has done no wrong." They have. However, the land mass of Israel is 1% of the mass of it's immediate neighbors. The population of Jews in Israel is 5.5 million verses over 400,000,000 million in the region who are Arab Muslims who have said there intent is to push the Jews into the sea.

The Palestinian plight is a creation of the surrounding nations as a result of their own aggression against Israel and then refusing to care for their Arab brothers who their own action displaced. The Palestinian plight is a tragedy that the Arab majority must accept much of the blame for. Instead of dealing with the problems on the ground in a constructive way, lies about the history of this tragedy are perpetrated as truth. This also is a crime.

Despite religious propaganda you'll find no saints in the holy land. The sooner they decide to act like adults in that neighborhood instead of spoiled children the sooner things can calm down.

Despite religious propaganda you'll find no saints in the holy land. The sooner they decide to act like adults in that neighborhood instead of spoiled children the sooner things can calm down.

Indeed.

Don't be an idiot!

There is not one religious reference in my post. You are simply afraid to deal with the facts as they have occurred and are now realities on the ground.

Don't be an idiot!

There is not one religious reference in my post. You are simply afraid to deal with the facts as they have occurred and are now realities on the ground.

Don't flame people. Some of us have delicate sensibilities about such things.

Still wrong to attack. They could have worked with it instead of attacking. As the old addage goes, violence begots violence.

You can say this with a straight face in the same thread where you've just been congratulating one side on airstriking the other?

No, I'm sorry, but your attempt to take any moral high ground fails.

The first time? Yea it was. The Yom Kippur War was a surprise attack done by Syria and Egypt. The 6 Day War was a pre-emptive strike due to the actions of Jordan and Egypt.
Come on...

I realise that the Yom Kippur War was started by a surprise attack, but that attack wasn’t made in a vacuum; the Jewish-Arab conflict has been going on for centuries, never mind the past fifty years.

All I’m saying is that this late in the game, it’s completely meaningless to assign blame on one side. Yes, individual actions can be ascribed to Israel or to Syria, Lebanon or Egypt, etc., but none of these actions happened out of the blue; they’re part of an ongoing, idiotic, geographic and religious struggle that has been waging for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Still wrong to attack. They could have worked with it instead of attacking. As the old addage goes, violence begots violence.
Very true.

An adage that all sides in this ridiculous fight should take to heart.

You can say this with a straight face in the same thread where you've just been congratulating one side on airstriking the other?

No, I'm sorry, but your attempt to take any moral high ground fails.

Syria and Israel are still at war with eachother. You do know this right?

Come on...

I realise that the Yom Kippur War was started by a surprise attack, but that attack wasn’t made in a vacuum; the Jewish-Arab conflict has been going on for centuries, never mind the past fifty years.

Yep.

All I’m saying is that this late in the game, it’s completely meaningless to assign blame on one side. Yes, individual actions can be ascribed to Israel or to Syria, Lebanon or Egypt, etc., but none of these actions happened out of the blue; they’re part of an ongoing, idiotic, geographic and religious struggle that has been waging for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Yep.

Very true.

An adage that all sides in this ridiculous fight should take to heart.

And yep :)

Yep. Yep. And yep :)
Slam dunk! :p

Are you really a student of this subject, or just a parrot?

Are you really a student of this subject, or just a parrot?
There’s a little button on the bottom-right of each post that says ‘quote’. If you click that, it’s easier for us to see which poster you’re trying to flame.

Are you really a student of this subject, or just a parrot?

Referring to whom?

Actually, one side--Israel--will end up losing a much larger percentage of its population than the other, like about 100%, and certain leading elements on the other side have shown they don't care about their own losses and care even less about killing non-combatants.

Ever heard of the "Samson" option?


The Palestinian plight is a creation of the surrounding nations as a result of their own aggression against Israel and then refusing to care for their Arab brothers who their own action displaced
Well those would be those that the Israelis expelled in 1948....That doesn't really explain why Israel is now outside its borders building apartments and semi-detatched housing on Arab land.......

It seems that attempts to push people into the sea have been confined to one side for some decades now.....

It is also from the example of Gaza that hunger for territory goes hand in hand with the attempt to empty it of its inhabitants. Ever since it captured Gaza, Israel has tried to diminish it by starvation and suffocation, driving residents to emigrate. Segev has some stunning evidence about this. ‘I want them all to go, even if they go to the moon,’ Eshkol told Ada Sereni, whom he had appointed head of a committee briefed to rid Gaza of its Palestinians. Because this failed, Gaza is today a hunger-stricken ghetto. The West’s obsession with Hamas’s ascendancy is a result of Western refusal to see Israel’s age-old policy for what it is: the aim has always been to seize the maximum amount of land while inheriting a minimum number of Palestinians
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/pdfCacheOfArticle0072581.pdf

Besides, Israel doesn't care about legal niceties when nuclear weapons are involved. If bombing that reactor would have resulted in an all-out war, they might have gone ahead with it.

Can't say that I really blame them. Israel simply cannot afford for any Muslim nation in the middle east to obtain nukes, or even obtain nuclear materials that could be used as a dirty bomb. I hope the Iranians are paying attention. If they get close to building nukes, I don't see the Israelis hesitating to use their own nukes to forestall such a nightmare scenario.

People can bring up the niceties of so-called "international law, " various anti-Israeli UN resolutions and all sorts of other irrelevancies. None of this will prevent the Israelis from doing what they have to do to defend themselves. I appreciate that.

Of course, the Syrians have been keeping their mouth shut about this whole thing, which leads me to believe they know they done wrong.

There’s a little button on the bottom-right of each post that says ‘quote’. If you click that, it’s easier for us to see which poster you’re trying to flame.

Thanks, I'm new to this process.

Now that I've been polite... I was referring to to you chumblywumbly and to Corneliu 2.

I'll try and be more specific.

The Beginning of the Strife
The conflict is as old as Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, patriarchs of the two peoples. The modern chapter began in the late 19th century, with the rise of Zionism as a result of the trial of a Jewish French military officer named Alfred Dreyfus, accused of treason. A Jewish newspaper reporter, Theodor Herzl, was covering the trial and in the course of the proceedings eventually realized that Dreyfus was being railroaded because he was Jewish. From that realization Herzl came to believe Jews would never be safe until they had a homeland of their own, and modern Zionism was born.
Two key historical events in this story occurred in the early 20th century. First, during WWI the British, under General Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks in 1917. Until that time, Jerusalem and Palestine were backwater regions of the Ottoman Empire, with its capital in Istanbul. Mark Twain visited Jerusalem in the 19th century and records it as a filthy old city in total disrepair. As Zionist Jews trickled into Palestine, they bought property from the absentee landowners - oftentimes the most undesirable portions of land at inflated prices - and converted swamps and desert land into blossoming agricultural kibbutzim (communes). With the increase of economic opportunity in Palestine, more and more Muslims began gravitating to the region to take advantage of the economic boom.
The second key event occurred when Britain promulgated the Balfour Declaration, saying His Majesty's government viewed with favor the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Fast Forward
As the number of Jews in Palestine increased, so did tensions between Arabs and Jews, fomented largely by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini. Today's conflict was formalized with the birth of the Israeli state in 1948, when the United Nations - in a cliffhanger majority - of one vote - partitioned Palestine into two states, one for Jews (Israel) and one for Arabs (Jordan). The Jewish suffering of the Holocaust was a tremendous impetus for the world to accommodate the Jews, who had suffered so greatly during World War II. The Arabs rejected the partition plan and attacked the new Jewish state, initiating the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
During this time the Arabs inside the fledgling state of Israel fled their homes to avoid getting caught in the impending conflict, also fearing rule under Jewish dominion. This group of refugees became the group of people we call the Palestinians today. Many fled to Jordan or other neighboring states, where they were placed in refugee camps and never assimilated into the greater culture of those countries. Even though most of the original 1948 refugees have died, many of their descendents still live in camps and to this day demand the right of return to their former homes inside Israel. The Israeli government has refused to grant this right because the Palestinian numbers would overwhelm the economic and political demographics of Israel, making the Israeli Jews minorities in their own country.
The Six-Day War (1967)
The events surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War is perhaps the biggest bone of contention regarding today's conflict: borders and who started the fight. Frequently, demands are heard about UN Resolution 242, which requires Israel to keep to its pre-1967 borders with its Arab neighbors, but no one can agree exactly what that will mean. At the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, no peace treaty was signed; a cease-fire armistice was the only thing defining borders and the terms of peace. A peace treaty was to be hammered out later, something which the Arab countries subsequently refused to do, since they still intended to retake the territory of Israel when the occasion presented itself.
A Bellicose Chronology
On May 15, 1967, Israeli intelligence discovered that Egypt was concentrating large-scale forces in the Sinai peninsula - remember this is before the days of satellite intelligence. On May 19, the United Nations Emergency Force stationed on the border between Egypt and Israel was evacuated at the demand of Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel-Nasser. During the night of May 22-23, Egypt's navy blockaded the Straits of Tiran opening into the Indian Ocean, prohibiting passage to Israeli ships. On May 30, Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian alliance of 1966 and placed its armies under Egyptian command. Iraq followed suit shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, military detachments from other Arab countries began arriving. By the end of May, Israel confronted a Muslim force of 465,000 troops, 2,880 tanks and 810 fighter aircraft along the entire length of her borders with Arab countries, which had not been there less than a month earlier.
As Arab radio crackled with "drive-them-into-the-sea" rhetoric, the situation became very tense. Technically, the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran could probably be considered the first bellicose act of war, but there had been no violence or lives lost. Despite a huge Egyptian army threatening its southern border, Israel tried to diplomatically defuse the crisis by approaching Britain and France, who had guaranteed freedom of Israeli navigation. Those counties reneged on their promise. U.S. President Johnson proposed breaking the blockade with an international armada. In a May 28 broadcast, Israel's Prime Minister Levi Eshkol agreed to wait and see.
By June 4 it became clear that diplomatic channels had failed. Faced with imminent danger, Israel launched a preemptive air strike to shatter Arab air forces while their aircraft were still on the ground, a move which succeeded. During the six days of the war, in fierce fighting Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai Desert from Egypt, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan - all of the territories that have been on the table for negotiation during the Oslo Peace Process. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt during the historic Camp David agreement under President Jimmy Carter, negotiated between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Sadat would later pay for this with his life as the result of an assassination. The remaining territories are still held by Israel. The Palestinians view these lands as having been seized and occupied by Israeli aggression, while Israelis view them as spoils of a war they didn't start or want.
The Jerusalem Block
Jerusalem remains a stumbling block to peace as the Palestinians claim the city was theirs before the 1967 War, while the city is the heart and soul of the Jewish nation and religion. It was the once-great capital of King David and the site of Solomon's and, later, Herod's temple. Even though Muslims considered Jerusalem to be a holy site, building the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount in a.d. 687 to commemorate the site from which Mohammed made his Miraaj or Night Journey into the heavens, the city itself was virtually ignored until Jewish immigrants returned in significant numbers. The city is now the greatest source of division between Israelis and Palestinians, since the side that rules Jerusalem will hold dominion over the other's holy sites. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can agree to willingly give up any part of the Temple Mount. It is the ultimate point of honor.
The Oslo Accord established most of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian-controlled areas with the understanding that future negotiations would be required to settle the questions of boundary lines, the establishment of a Palestinian state, the issue of Jerusalem, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. It was deemed that these issues were too hot to handle, and indeed these issues have torpedoed talks since. In a drive to establish himself as the president whose legacy was to bring peace to the Middle East, President Clinton pressured Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat into addressing these issues prematurely. Coming to an agreement at that point would have meant political suicide for both men, and ultimately it cost Barak his position.
In the meanwhile, it is the common people on both sides who are suffering the effects of the constant violence. The Israeli economy has been hard hit with the decrease in tourism due to the violence, and Palestinians are struck with a 60% unemployment rate, in part because they are not allowed to commute to their jobs in Israel.
Why Do They Hate Us?
Many Westerners fail to understand the deeper religious nature of not only the Middle Eastern conflict, but also how that affects our own position in the world. September 11 caught the United States and the West by surprise, but it shouldn't have. The indicators were all there for anyone with eyes to understand what they were looking at, and it was clear something had to give. Western culture is viewed as a threat to Islam, which by now should have been well underway to converting the globe to the service of Allah. Indeed it really is, as in some parts of the western world it's the fastest growing religion. By 632, the prophet Mohammed had completed the task of conquering the Arabian peninsula, something he began only 10 years earlier. From Arabia, Islam swept through North Africa as well as modern-day Turkey and into the Balkans. From North Africa the Muslims invaded the Iberian peninsula and proceeded into the European heartland, where they were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. Muslims continued to have a foothold in Spain, contributing greatly to Spanish culture, until they were finally expelled under Isabella and Ferdinand in 1492.
Islam is a rich and complex culture in itself, which traditionally assumes one of two roles. In a country where it is not dominant, it takes on a submissive, negotiating role until it can achieve the upper hand. Once in dominance, it switches faces and assumes control, imposing itself on the culture in which it finds itself the majority. Ultimately Muslims believe that the whole world will be Muslim, even if it takes centuries and any number of setbacks.
Arab Muslims have a love/hate relationship with the West. Muslims view Western culture as being decadent (frankly, they're right), and are distressed that Western governments have intruded into Muslim lands since World War I. Virtually all of the countries of the Middle East today are the result of artificial borders drawn up by Western powers following the Great War. Israel is viewed as a Western thorn in the Islamic heartland; an intolerable cancer that ultimately must be dealt with. The question in the Islamic mind is not how much land Israel holds; it is the fact that it holds any land at all in what was formerly Muslim territory. This is one core reason why the Middle East can never have peace unless it is imposed from without, and once the external pressure is removed, war will return.
While adhering to 6th-century religious practices, especially concerning sexuality and women, Muslims steadfastly believe in the ultimate global victory of Islam. Still while deploring Western culture, Muslims love Western technology and money. They use email, cell phones, faxes, and the like. They buy Western weapons and clothing and use oil money from Western countries to finance their activities, including terrorism.
World Opinion? Never Again!
The Jewish population of Israel has equally strong emotive ties to the land under question. Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Scriptures. It was from Jerusalem and greater Israel that the Jews were driven into Diaspora. After enduring two millennia of exile, persecution and pogroms, Jews have finally returned to their homeland, about which they would conclude their yearly Passover seders by saying, "Next year in Jerusalem."
The horrors of the Holocaust cemented the need for a Jewish state in the ancestral Jewish homeland. That's why world opinion doesn't impress the Israelis as much as one might think it should. World opinion didn't help the Jews when they were seeking refuge from Hitler's Germany even before the Endlösung (final solution) had been implemented. Ships bearing Jews were turned back to Germany, even from the U.S. Most countries were unwilling to take them in when they desperately needed a place to go and public opinion had totally failed to apprehend the approaching slaughter. Countries have reneged on their vows to aid Israel. So in the Israeli mind, it is their lives in the balance and world opinion is just "talk." The vow, "Never Again!" weighs heavily in the Israeli mind-set and rightly so.
Another Final Solution?
The two groups competing for the same space in the Middle East have two different religions, two different worldviews, two different "scriptures" for the future destiny of the land. Coupled with that is a century of bloodshed, conflict, reprisals and hatred in which citizens from both sides have suffered and died.

Can't say that I really blame them. Israel simply cannot afford for any Muslim nation in the middle east to obtain nukes, or even obtain nuclear materials that could be used as a dirty bomb. I hope the Iranians are paying attention. If they get close to building nukes, I don't see the Israelis hesitating to use their own nukes to forestall such a nightmare scenario.

People can bring up the niceties of so-called "international law, " various anti-Israeli UN resolutions and all sorts of other irrelevancies. None of this will prevent the Israelis from doing what they have to do to defend themselves. I appreciate that.

Of course, the Syrians have been keeping their mouth shut about this whole thing, which leads me to believe they know they done wrong.

By that logic the Arabs are right to bomb Israel to prevent them from nuking Arab lands.

Thanks, I'm new to this process.

Now that I've been polite... I was referring to to you chumblywumbly and to Corneliu 2.

I'll try and be more specific.

I'm a parrot? a Parrot for whom? I support the State of Israel when I feel that they were right which for now is the case here.

Of course, the Syrians have been keeping their mouth shut about this whole thing, which leads me to believe they know they done wrong.

Yeh. Silence equals...... guilt.

*goes to alert constitutional lawyers*

I'm a parrot? a Parrot for whom? I support the State of Israel when I feel that they were right which for now is the case here.

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology.

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology.

Of Course :)

By that logic the Arabs are right to bomb Israel to prevent them from nuking Arab lands.

If any Arab state (or Iran) gets its hands on nukes, there is a very high probability that they will use said nukes against Israel, or give it to a proxy to do so.

The only reason one of Israel's neighbors would want a nuke is to use it against Israel. You can raise whatever arguments you want regarding fairness and other crap that has no place in the real world of international relations. The Muslim world knows what the Israeli response is likely to be to one of them acquiring nukes. Only the mullahs in Iran (and apparently Assad, to a lesser extent) are nutty enough at this point to push the issue.

Iran's government is making the calculation that they can get nukes assembled before anyone does something drastic to stop them. I think they are being incredibly reckless and might well find mushroom clouds one day over certain facilities in Iran.

The Israelis simply have no margin for error here- they must do everything in their power to stop their enemies from acquiring nukes.

India is in a similar situation vis a vis Pakistan. If the Musharaff government falls and is overtaken by some Islamist faction, you will probably see the Indians using their nukes against Pakistani nuclear facilities.

*snip*.

So all Muslims belong to a hive mind?

If any Arab state (or Iran) gets its hands on nukes, there is a very high probability that they will use said nukes against Israel, or give it to a proxy to do so.
Based on what evidence exactly?

The only reason one of Israel's neighbors would want a nuke is to use it against Israel.
Or, defence against Israeli nuclear capabilities? They're both an offensive and defensive weapon.

You can raise whatever arguments you want regarding fairness and other crap that has no place in the real world of international relations.
No, logic does. You seem to have missed that earlier on.

The Muslim world knows what the Israeli response is likely to be to one of them acquiring nukes. Only the mullahs in Iran (and apparently Assad, to a lesser extent) are nutty enough at this point to push the issue.
What, getting better defensive capabilities?

Iran's government is making the calculation that they can get nukes assembled before anyone does something drastic to stop them. I think they are being incredibly reckless and might well find mushroom clouds one day over certain facilities in Iran.
My, what top notch insight.

India is in a similar situation vis a vis Pakistan. If the Musharaff government falls and is overtaken by some Islamist faction, you will probably see the Indians using their nukes against Pakistani nuclear facilities.
You sir, are a genius.

If any Arab state (or Iran) gets its hands on nukes, there is a very high probability that they will use said nukes against Israel, or give it to a proxy to do so.

The only reason one of Israel's neighbors would want a nuke is to use it against Israel. You can raise whatever arguments you want regarding fairness and other crap that has no place in the real world of international relations. The Muslim world knows what the Israeli response is likely to be to one of them acquiring nukes. Only the mullahs in Iran (and apparently Assad, to a lesser extent) are nutty enough at this point to push the issue.

Iran's government is making the calculation that they can get nukes assembled before anyone does something drastic to stop them. I think they are being incredibly reckless and might well find mushroom clouds one day over certain facilities in Iran.

The Israelis simply have no margin for error here- they must do everything in their power to stop their enemies from acquiring nukes. Israel is a really tiny country, why the hell would they bother using a nuke on them? Waste of a good bomb. Conventional carpet bombing would be quite sufficient if they could get the numbers for it. Know why they don't do that? Two reasons as I see it. Firstly Israel is a good scapegoat, keeps the population fixated on something other than blowing each other up. Secondly attacking Israel will result in immediate nuclear retaliation. They all know it. It's a losing proposition, and despite your low (and unrealistic) opinion of Arab leaders they are not stupid, nor are they crazy.

India is in a similar situation vis a vis Pakistan. If the Musharaff government falls and is overtaken by some Islamist faction, you will probably see the Indians using their nukes against Pakistani nuclear facilities.

Eh, what does that have to do with anything? India and Pakistan both have nukes.

Firstly Israel is a good scapegoat, keeps the population fixated on something other than blowing each other up.
Exactly! Why remove the perfect whipping boy for all your country's problems. It's the perfect distraction and excuse for all that's ill. Most Middle Eastern populations deplore their governments (see the al-Saud family) but their attnetion is always fixed on the Israeli issue because their leaders say 'they' are the root of their problems.

despite your low (and unrealistic) opinion of Arab leaders they are not stupid, nor are they crazy.
Shock. Arab leaders are human and follow logic!

Israel is a really tiny country, why the hell would they bother using a nuke on them? Waste of a good bomb. Conventional carpet bombing would be quite sufficient if they could get the numbers for it. Know why they don't do that? Two reasons as I see it. Firstly Israel is a good scapegoat, keeps the population fixated on something other than blowing each other up. Secondly attacking Israel will result in immediate nuclear retaliation. They all know it. It's a losing proposition, and despite your low (and unrealistic) opinion of Arab leaders they are not stupid, nor are they crazy.


Because a nuke in the back of a truck or in a suitcase bomb going off in the center of Tel Aviv gives Iran plausable deniability. Bombers flying overhead trying to carpetbomb, besides being unlikely due to advanced Israeli air defences would make the agressor clear.

http://auction-genius-course.com/blog/img/toast.jpg

Looks like those stinking Catholics are trying to sneakily turn people into Pope lovers. Looks like we officially have to bomb the Vatican.

Exactly! Why remove the perfect whipping boy for all your country's problems. It's the perfect distraction and excuse for all that's ill. Most Middle Eastern populations deplore their governments (see the al-Saud family) but their attnetion is always fixed on the Israeli issue because their leaders say 'they' are the root of their problems.


Shock. Arab leaders are human and follow logic!

See also the Sunni Vs Shia fighting in Iraq. If you think that wouldn't spread in a heartbeat. There's a lot of anger between those factions and I can't figure out why. Though I can't figure it out because I don't care.

Because a nuke in the back of a truck or in a suitcase bomb going off in the center of Tel Aviv gives Iran plausable deniability. Bombers flying overhead trying to carpetbomb, besides being unlikely due to advanced Israeli air defences would make the agressor clear.

Who'd do anything about it? The US? We don't have the military for it right now. The UN? What a joke.

If they wanted Israel gone, now would be the optimum time to do it. We're too busy getting our asses kicked in Iraq to do shit about it.

I was referring to to you chumblywumbly and to Corneliu 2.
Well in answer to your question, I am neither a full-time student of politics, though I have studied it in the past, nor a parrot.

Yes, an Arab state might get a nuclear weapon for self-defense. The Israelis know this. BUT they might get it to destroy Israel. The Israelis aren't going to take the chance that the latter might be true.

The Israelis want to survive. They have faced attacks in the past by foes who are bent on destroying Israel. They are prepared to take extreme action to insure their own survival.

Look, Israel would be willing to sacrifice its good relations with the US if that was what it took.

Yeh. Silence equals...... guilt.

*goes to alert constitutional lawyers*

If the Israelis had hit a chocolate chip factory, you don't think the Syrians would be leading press tours of the ruined facility to embarrass Israel?

Yes, an Arab state might get a nuclear weapon for self-defense. The Israelis know this. BUT they might get it to destroy Israel. The Israelis aren't going to take the chance that the latter might be true.

The Israelis want to survive. They have faced attacks in the past by foes who are bent on destroying Israel. They are prepared to take extreme action to insure their own survival.

Look, Israel would be willing to sacrifice its good relations with the US if that was what it took.

What state would commit suicide by nuking Israel? None of them? Thank you for disproving your point.

Well in answer to your question, I am neither a full-time student of politics, though I have studied it in the past, nor a parrot.

I appreciate your honesty.

Very few people understand that this is far from just politics. Unless, someone takes the time to really study the facts... not the rhetoric from either side... they simply cannot grasp all that is going on. Too many people exert their political influence at the polls based upon sound bites. Sound bites cannot communicate the complex issues behind the Middle East conflict.

Most people are simply ignorant. I don't believe that is you, but it is true of many of the people I have seen posting on this issue today.

Israel is a World War-starter waiting for an excuse.

Israel has repeatedly threatened other nations with nuclear attack -- including the West.

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."
-- Martin van Crefeld (January 31, 2003; Martin van Crefeld; Professor of Military History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
-- Israeli leader Ariel Sharon

"Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?"
-- David Perlmutter in Los Angeles Times

Who'd do anything about it? The US? We don't have the military for it right now. The UN? What a joke.

If they wanted Israel gone, now would be the optimum time to do it. We're too busy getting our asses kicked in Iraq to do shit about it.

None of Israel's enemies have the ability to defeat Israel through conventional means. Their last real shot at this was back in 1973 when the conventional military gap between the two sides was much less.

Since then, Israeli's military has advanced its capabilities by a large degree, while Arab militaries have remained relatively stagnant, especially since the fall of their Soviet patron.

So, for any country that really wants to defeat Israel, the nuclear option is the only realistic one.

I figure they're using Israel as a scapegoat for their own internal difficulties. The Jews make a nice boogeyman for 'em.

They've been doing that for decades.

Israel is a World War-starter waiting for an excuse.

Israel has repeatedly threatened other nations with nuclear attack -- including the West.

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."
-- Martin van Crefeld (January 31, 2003; Martin van Crefeld; Professor of Military History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
-- Israeli leader Ariel Sharon

"Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?"
-- David Perlmutter in Los Angeles Times

Irresponsible bravado is never wise. But remember, this little nation of 5.5 million Jews has no other fall-back position. 6,000,000 people died in the ovens in just a few short years. That collective horror must never be forgotten. It fuels the fire for self-preservation in the nation of Israel. Visit the Yad Vashem holocaust site on the web. You might begin to understand.

Israel is a World War-starter waiting for an excuse.

Israel has repeatedly threatened other nations with nuclear attack -- including the West.

Um may I see proof that they threatened the west?

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."
-- Martin van Crefeld (January 31, 2003; Martin van Crefeld; Professor of Military History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
-- Israeli leader Ariel Sharon

"Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?"
-- David Perlmutter in Los Angeles Times

WOW! You really had to dig for extremes didn't you? Now can I see where Sharon said that bit about the matches and the quote from Crefeld as well please?

Who'd do anything about it? The US? We don't have the military for it right now. The UN? What a joke.

If they wanted Israel gone, now would be the optimum time to do it. We're too busy getting our asses kicked in Iraq to do shit about it.

You missunderstand my point. If a Mideastern country wanted Israel hit in a major city and not risk instant nuclear retaliation, the only way would be for a non source specific nuclear bomb to explode on Israeli territory. If a bomb blows up, who did it? Syrians? Radical Israelis? Iranians? Smuggeled Russian plutonium used by angry Branch Dividians? Scientologists? If you want dead Jews without instant nuclear death in retaliation it would be the only way to do it.

Israel is a World War-starter waiting for an excuse.

Israel has repeatedly threatened other nations with nuclear attack -- including the West.

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."
-- Martin van Crefeld (January 31, 2003; Martin van Crefeld; Professor of Military History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
-- Israeli leader Ariel Sharon

"Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?"
-- David Perlmutter in Los Angeles Times

Context is always important. Your quote of Martin van Crefeld fails to note that his opinion is that the only way Israel can extricate itself from the Palestinian issue is to find a way to balance the power between the two sides. In fact, he does not believe military superiority of Israel contributes to finding a solution.

I don't agree with his postion. But you misused his quote to give him the appearance of being a blind "hawk."

None of Israel's enemies have the ability to defeat Israel through conventional means. Their last real shot at this was back in 1973 when the conventional military gap between the two sides was much less.

Since then, Israeli's military has advanced its capabilities by a large degree, while Arab militaries have remained relatively stagnant, especially since the fall of their Soviet patron.

So, for any country that really wants to defeat Israel, the nuclear option is the only realistic one.

You may of missed it but Lebanon kicked their asses a while back.

You may of missed it but Lebanon kicked their asses a while back.

I'd say you missed it too. So did everyone else, since it never happened. Neither "Lebanon" nor anyone else, including Hezz-BLAAAH!, kicked any tuchas.

I'd say you missed it too. So did everyone else, since it never happened. Neither "Lebanon" nor anyone else, including Hezz-BLAAAH!, kicked any tuchas.

Really? So the couple weeks of bleeding the IDF and making them fire at UN positions didn't happen?

I'll say this Israel had the brains to declare victory and tuck tail.

You may of missed it but Lebanon kicked their asses a while back.

No, it didn't. Hezbollah fought hard (the Lebanese army, from what I can see, did nothing), but was getting seriously smashed. What they managed to do, was raise the cost of the operation (including international condemnation) to a point that Israel was unwilling to pay.

Israel chose to start the conflict, with good and fair reasons for doing so. They then chose to stop and return to Israel. To say that they were defeated, in any but a political sense, is foolish.

However.

Israel has the best trained and equipped armed force in the middle east, aside from perhaps Turkey's. What they do NOT have is huge numbers. Syria alone has a larger army.

If Syria, or Saudi, put together a properly trained and equipped military (and Saudi, with US help, is doing so), They would have a reasonable chance to defeat Israel in an open field engagement. The one thing Israel has going for it is that they have their backs to the sea - soldiers always fight harder when they have no alternative.

You may of missed it but Lebanon kicked their asses a while back.

You must have been watching a different channel. Lebanon did not kick Israel's ass!

I was in Israel when this all started and have eyewitness experience. Here is what happened.

Israel succumbed to world pressure (including that of the US) and did not move forward to complete the task quickly enough. The resulting world pressure forced Israel to retreat leaving Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah hurt... but not crushed. The UN stepped in once they thought it was safe and allowed Hezbollah to retake the ground they had been driven off of, allowed Syria and Iran to re-arm their puppet regime, and the gains won on the ground by Israel vaporized.

If the UN and the rest of the world had stayed out of the mix, we would see a vastly different reality in Lebanon and maybe even Syria. Iran would have lost a foothold and maybe stand down in the region for a time.

No, it didn't. Hezbollah fought hard (the Lebanese army, from what I can see, did nothing), but was getting seriously smashed. What they managed to do, was raise the cost of the operation (including international condemnation) to a point that Israel was unwilling to pay.

Israel chose to start the conflict, with good and fair reasons for doing so. They then chose to stop and return to Israel. To say that they were defeated, in any but a political sense, is foolish.

However.

Israel has the best trained and equipped armed force in the middle east, aside from perhaps Turkey's. What they do NOT have is huge numbers. Syria alone has a larger army.

If Syria, or Saudi, put together a properly trained and equipped military (and Saudi, with US help, is doing so), They would have a reasonable chance to defeat Israel in an open field engagement. The one thing Israel has going for it is that they have their backs to the sea - soldiers always fight harder when they have no alternative.

Israel's real strength is that their intelligence services would alert them long before such a thing could happen, and they do get bomb happy. A prolonged buildup by their neighbors and Israel would succumb however. They're tenacious, but they're not unbeatable.

There's nothing stopping the Arabs from winning, I can only assume they lack the will to do so.

Debate by massive C&p is discouraged, I believe. And use paragraphs, for the love of fuck.....

As Zionist Jews trickled into Palestine, they bought property from the absentee landowners - oftentimes the most undesirable portions of land at inflated prices - and converted swamps and desert land into blossoming agricultural kibbutzim (communes). With the increase of economic opportunity in Palestine, more and more Muslims began gravitating to the region to take advantage of the economic boom. .

The old "they aren't really native to the area" shite.


As the number of Jews in Palestine increased, so did tensions between Arabs and Jews, fomented largely by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini.
.

His role is greatly exaggerated. You didn't mention Arab fears that they would be forced out by the zionist settlers, and Arab resentment at the British betrayal regarding their promise of Arab self-rule for support in WW1.


During this time the Arabs inside the fledgling state of Israel fled their homes to avoid getting caught in the impending conflict, also fearing rule under Jewish dominion..

Bollocks. The vast majority were forcibly expelled.


. Frequently, demands are heard about UN Resolution 242, which requires Israel to keep to its pre-1967 borders with its Arab neighbors, but no one can agree exactly what that will mean. ..

It means they can fuck off to their own side of the border and take the settlers with them, the final and new border to be negotiated, under international arbitration.


Islam is a rich and complex culture in itself, which traditionally assumes one of two roles. In a country where it is not dominant, it takes on a submissive, negotiating role until it can achieve the upper hand. Once in dominance, it switches faces and assumes control, imposing itself on the culture in which it finds itself the majority.
..

Ja!!!!!....

Absolute shite.


Arab Muslims have a love/hate relationship with the West. Muslims view Western culture as being decadent (frankly, they're right), ..

Frankly, if this is decadence, good for us..



It fuels the fire for self-preservation in the nation of Israel. Visit the Yad Vashem holocaust site on the web. You might begin to understand...

I still don't see the link between self-preservation and building colonies amongst hostile and badly armed civillians...

There's nothing stopping the Arabs from winning, I can only assume they lack the will to do so.

Lol. Its hardly lack of will that prevents Arabs from attacking Israel and moreso Israeli nuclear subs on thier shores and Israeli nuclear cruise missiles on thier launchpads. This is the only thing that is keeping the balance. The rest is all window dressing. And this is why its so important to maintain this status quo.

There's nothing stopping the Arabs from winning, I can only assume they lack the will to do so.

They attacked Israel with 5 armies in 1948 and lost.

Debate by massive C&p is discouraged, I believe. And use paragraphs, for the love of fuck.....



The old "they aren't really native to the area" shite.



His role is greatly exaggerated. You didn't mention Arab fears that they would be forced out by the zionist settlers, and Arab resentment at the British betrayal regarding their promise of Arab self-rule for support in WW1.



Bollocks. The vast majority were forcibly expelled.



It means they can fuck off to their own side of the border and take the settlers with them, the final and new border to be negotiated, under international arbitration.



Ja!!!!!....

Absolute shite.



Frankly, if this is decadence, good for us..



I still don't see the link between self-preservation and building colonies amongst hostile and badly armed civillians...

I love your use of language. You are so eloquent.

Israel's real strength is that their intelligence services would alert them long before such a thing could happen, and they do get bomb happy. A prolonged buildup by their neighbors and Israel would succumb however. They're tenacious, but they're not unbeatable.

There's nothing stopping the Arabs from winning, I can only assume they lack the will to do so.

They lack the will to pay the price required. A common enough situation.

Also, and this may sound racist (it isn't really meant to be), but the Arab militaries always seem, well, rabble. I've been around a few, and they invariably showed poor discipline, poor maintenance of equipment, and a distinct lack of skills I'd have expected them to possess.

It just seems so odd, considering that these are wealthy, powerful countries. But I've seen third world hellholes whose soldiers I'd have rather worked beside.

I suspect that's why the Saudis are getting US trainers in.

Isreal has the ability to make every capitol city in the Middle East glow a pretty red and yellow and orange and would do so before the Arabs got 2 miles onto Israeli territory.

I love your use of language. You are so eloquent.


Yeah. I love your uncredited use of other peoples. They aren't eloquent at all though. Or factually correct. Presumably because they've got the "lens of scripture" the wrong way round.....
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/416/

If Syria, or Saudi, put together a properly trained and equipped military (and Saudi, with US help, is doing so), They would have a reasonable chance to defeat Israel in an open field engagement. The one thing Israel has going for it is that they have their backs to the sea - soldiers always fight harder when they have no alternative.

The problem for the Arab states is that they are culturally unable to build a modern military. They can buy all the modern military hardware they want, but there are serious cultural impediments to them putting together a fighting force that can match a modern Western nation like Israel.

Put simply, an army is a reflection of the society that creates it. Arab armies will always remain as dysfunctional as the Arab cultures from which they are drawn.

Yeah. I love your uncredited use of other peoples. They aren't eloquent at all though. Or factually correct. Presumably because they've got the "lens of scripture" the wrong way round.....
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/416/

I'm new to this, didn't know I needed to quote and frankly I couldn't remember where I go that article.

However, just because you don't like the source, the historical acts are still the same. As you will note, with the exception of the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael there are no other references to a religious perspective. Concerning the historical facts... "it is what it is."

There’s a little button on the bottom-right of each post that says ‘quote’. If you click that, it’s easier for us to see which poster you’re trying to flame.

Dainty! I particularly like "trying to" ...

*snip enormous quote*

Your unattributed quote is from this. (http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/416/)

That is called "cut and paste spam" and is not allowed here.
You should go read the stickies (top of the General front page).
You should go read them right now.

EDIT: OK OK. Nodinia beat me to it by an HOUR. I was reading the thread but hadn't got to the end.

Dainty! I particularly like "trying to" ...



Your unattributed quote is from this. (http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/416/)

That is called "cut and paste spam" and is not allowed here.
You should go read the stickies (top of the General front page).
You should go read them right now.

I will do that and I'll make sure that to the best of my ability, I maintain proper protocol.

My point is that not signing the NNPT and covertly developing nuclear weapons are the actions of a ‘rogue’ state; a state that is acting in a dangerous and threatening manner.

If any nation apart from Israel did this, Western leaders would shit a brick, and posters such as yourself, New Mitanni and Marrakech II would be calling for pre-emptive strikes and/or immediate action.

I'd rather see diplomacy take place and not military action but thanks for telling me what I would do.
You have stated many times what you would do and diplomacy was not one of your options:

I say nuke'em now (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8174191&postcount=338). That way they can't nuke anyone if they are radioactive dust. :-D

SWEET! Warm up the missile silos boys. We're going to have ourselves a bbq (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21).
Diplomacy? Yeah right!!

I'm new to this, didn't know I needed to quote and frankly I couldn't remember where I go that article.

Ignorance of the forum rules is no excuse. You are expected to have read the stickies before posting.

Let me tell you how I found the article. I copied the very first sentence, then pasted it into Google with quote marks to either side. Then I hit 'search.'

One hit. That's how I found it.

Ignorance of the forum rules is no excuse. You are expected to have read the stickies before posting.

Let me tell you how I found the article. I copied the very first sentence, then pasted it into Google with quote marks to either side. Then I hit 'search.'

One hit. That's how I found it.

I understand and have now been properly chastised... let's move on.

This debate\discussion\entire thread is absolutely pointless. I think I'll be correct to estimate that most (if not all) of the people involved in threads like this one, have no clue about the deeper aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One can't watch a CNN report, read a "special coverage" page in their website, and then claim to understand the conflict. In order to understand this entire mess, I think there's no alternative to living in the Middle East. CNN can't give you the mentality of a people through your TV, it can tell you that "Israel attacks this and that" or "Syria demands bla bla bla", but that's it.

I'll give you an example: Today, the IDF was supposed to begin its usual drill in the Golan Heights. The Syrians, of course, got a bit jumpy and nervous about it, saying Israel is aggressive, so in order to calm things down, the drill was relocated to the Galil.

That's not an important event, but it shows people here don't want to kill themselves like lunatics, as some people here think.

I'm Israeli, but I'm not going to express any opinion about the recent IDF strike, not because I don't have a way to justify it (and I do), but because it won't matter, and I won't make someone be an Israel fan in a minute.

OK, I've finished reading and will now comment on a few posts. I don't have a firm position on the Israel question, which seems to be where the thread is now. Most particularly I don't take one "side" against the other.

If any Arab state (or Iran) gets its hands on nukes, there is a very high probability that they will use said nukes against Israel, or give it to a proxy to do so.

Why? The entire history of nuclear weapons after Nagasaki is one of stability. They are weapons of last resort, strategic eight-balls.

The only reason one of Israel's neighbors would want a nuke is to use it against Israel.

And the only reason Israel would want nukes is to use them against their neighbours. The argument has no explanatory power, absent some racist idea of "arabs don't behave rationally."

The Israelis simply have no margin for error here- they must do everything in their power to stop their enemies from acquiring nukes.

To some extent yes, but not "everything in their power."

For now, the strategy worked on Iraq, they abandoned reactors instead of simply burying them deep. It may have worked on Syria, we won't know.

There's a downside, and it's what Iran is doing. Deep bunkers aren't just harder to hit, it's harder to know if the strike suceeded.

*snip image*

Looks like those stinking Catholics are trying to sneakily turn people into Pope lovers. Looks like we officially have to bomb the Vatican.

Messiah Jesus, this is something you should not do. This is SPAM. Funny perhaps, but entirely unrelated to anything any other poster has said, or indeed the topic.

Because a nuke in the back of a truck or in a suitcase bomb going off in the center of Tel Aviv gives Iran plausable deniability. Bombers flying overhead trying to carpetbomb, besides being unlikely due to advanced Israeli air defences would make the agressor clear.

Plausible deniability for a day or two, just possibly enough to let Israel cool down enough not to blow Damascus away. Nuclear fallout is very revealing of the manufacture process, Syria would be busted eventually.

Yes, an Arab state might get a nuclear weapon for self-defense. The Israelis know this. BUT they might get it to destroy Israel. The Israelis aren't going to take the chance that the latter might be true.

They'll have to face it someday, but the strategy of holding off that day is quite rational.

If the Israelis had hit a chocolate chip factory, you don't think the Syrians would be leading press tours of the ruined facility to embarrass Israel?

That's the puzzle. They could still do that, but they're keeping quiet.
I don't know, but it could be a "neither confirm nor deny" strategy to deny Israel information about what was hit.

WOW! You really had to dig for extremes didn't you? Now can I see where Sharon said that bit about the matches and the quote from Crefeld as well please?

Yeah, when the Prime Minister of Israel threatens to ignite a war, it's jewish shadenfreud humour. When it's Aheminajad, it's a deadly serious threat. The prominence (deserved, earned, don't get me wrong) of jewish culture within our own allows us to "get" them more easily than persians.

Context is always important. Your quote of Martin van Crefeld fails to note that his opinion is that the only way Israel can extricate itself from the Palestinian issue is to find a way to balance the power between the two sides. In fact, he does not believe military superiority of Israel contributes to finding a solution.

I don't agree with his postion. But you misused his quote to give him the appearance of being a blind "hawk."

Quite excellent. Welcome to NSG, if I didn't say that already.

You must have been watching a different channel. Lebanon did not kick Israel's ass!

I was in Israel when this all started and have eyewitness experience. Here is what happened.

Israel succumbed to world pressure (including that of the US) and did not move forward to complete the task quickly enough. The resulting world pressure forced Israel to retreat leaving Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah hurt... but not crushed. The UN stepped in once they thought it was safe and allowed Hezbollah to retake the ground they had been driven off of, allowed Syria and Iran to re-arm their puppet regime, and the gains won on the ground by Israel vaporized.

Interesting.

If the UN and the rest of the world had stayed out of the mix, we would see a vastly different reality in Lebanon and maybe even Syria. Iran would have lost a foothold and maybe stand down in the region for a time.

OMG, someone who thinks the UN actually once in some way DID SOMETHING.

The problem for the Arab states is that they are culturally unable to build a modern military. They can buy all the modern military hardware they want, but there are serious cultural impediments to them putting together a fighting force that can match a modern Western nation like Israel.

Put simply, an army is a reflection of the society that creates it. Arab armies will always remain as dysfunctional as the Arab cultures from which they are drawn.

Nicely worded bunkum. What qualities of a modern military do arabs lack? Unwillingness to die? Lack of a culture of discipline and following orders? Lack of clearly defined military objectives I could buy, but this "serious cultural impediments" fairyfloss ... no. You need to be more specific.

This debate\discussion\entire thread is absolutely pointless. I think I'll be correct to estimate that most (if not all) of the people involved in threads like this one, have no clue about the deeper aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Well fair enough. You will now proceed to enlighten us a little.

One can't watch a CNN report, read a "special coverage" page in their website, and then claim to understand the conflict. In order to understand this entire mess, I think there's no alternative to living in the Middle East. CNN can't give you the mentality of a people through your TV, it can tell you that "Israel attacks this and that" or "Syria demands bla bla bla", but that's it.

I'll give you an example: Today, the IDF was supposed to begin its usual drill in the Golan Heights. The Syrians, of course, got a bit jumpy and nervous about it, saying Israel is aggressive, so in order to calm things down, the drill was relocated to the Galil.

That's not an important event, but it shows people here don't want to kill themselves like lunatics, as some people here think.

Actually, some of those people have an equally bleak view of human behaviour anywhere and everywhere. "Humans are crazy and I want them all blown up so I don't have to even try to understand them" seems to be the line ....

I'm Israeli, but I'm not going to express any opinion about the recent IDF strike, not because I don't have a way to justify it (and I do), but because it won't matter, and I won't make someone be an Israel fan in a minute.

No, you really should express an opinion about the recent strike. It's the thread topic.

No, you really should express an opinion about the recent strike. It's the thread topic.

But that would contradict my initial reason. :eek:

You know what, I'll wait until my government gives an official response to the Syrian claims (it neither confirmed nor denied yet), and then I'll express my opinions.

But that would contradict my initial reason. :eek:

We're ignorant, from lack of personal perspective. And you like it that way.

I'm just a smartass really. I have no good reason to care about that part of the world, and I'll admit to turning the page on many an unread story from the Middle East. So I'm easily persuaded not to dig for your opinions.

I'm giving up for now. My brain is tired just from reading the thread. :confused:

This debate\discussion\entire thread is absolutely pointless. I think I'll be correct to estimate that most (if not all) of the people involved in threads like this one, have no clue about the deeper aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One can't watch a CNN report, read a "special coverage" page in their website, and then claim to understand the conflict. In order to understand this entire mess, I think there's no alternative to living in the Middle East. CNN can't give you the mentality of a people through your TV, it can tell you that "Israel attacks this and that" or "Syria demands bla bla bla", but that's it.

I'll give you an example: Today, the IDF was supposed to begin its usual drill in the Golan Heights. The Syrians, of course, got a bit jumpy and nervous about it, saying Israel is aggressive, so in order to calm things down, the drill was relocated to the Galil.

That's not an important event, but it shows people here don't want to kill themselves like lunatics, as some people here think.

I'm Israeli, but I'm not going to express any opinion about the recent IDF strike, not because I don't have a way to justify it (and I do), but because it won't matter, and I won't make someone be an Israel fan in a minute.

While I am not an Israeli, I have spent quite a bit of time in your country. I have many close friends who live there. I agree completely that the vast majority of people in the world have no frame of reference from which to arrive at a knowledgeable conclusion.

If any Arab state (or Iran) gets its hands on nukes, there is a very high probability that they will use said nukes against Israel, or give it to a proxy to do so.

The only reason one of Israel's neighbors would want a nuke is to use it against Israel. You can raise whatever arguments you want regarding fairness and other crap that has no place in the real world of international relations. The Muslim world knows what the Israeli response is likely to be to one of them acquiring nukes. Only the mullahs in Iran (and apparently Assad, to a lesser extent) are nutty enough at this point to push the issue.

Iran's government is making the calculation that they can get nukes assembled before anyone does something drastic to stop them. I think they are being incredibly reckless and might well find mushroom clouds one day over certain facilities in Iran.

The Israelis simply have no margin for error here- they must do everything in their power to stop their enemies from acquiring nukes.

India is in a similar situation vis a vis Pakistan. If the Musharaff government falls and is overtaken by some Islamist faction, you will probably see the Indians using their nukes against Pakistani nuclear facilities.

Anyone nuking or detonating a radiological device in Israel is committing suicide. Why punch your foe when you know he's got a Mac-10 to rip you in half? The entire argument that people for Israel are making is "you can't trust those Arabs." This is going under the false assumption that we can always trust the Jews. I trust neither, but I think leveling the playing field is productive rather than the opposite. So the analogy you people would like to make is Mexico hits the US with one nuke and expects us not to decimate their entire nation?

You do realize that fission weaponry can be traced back by their radiological nature don't you?
.

Yes I am aware of this however that can take awhile to figure out and the offending country could deny and even say those weapons were stolen.


As for your idea of "strike them first on the off chance they might strike us" sure, that might be worth it. But only if you'll let me shoot you on the suspicion that you might shoot me first.
.
Well you better be good aim because if the first shot doesn't find it's mark you would end up dead.


As for trading the tech, pah! Pakistan, Korea, Europe, even your oh so precious United States have all been implicated in dealing with that kind of trade in one form or another.

Who would you trust more with nukes? The US a random European nation or Iran? Choice is simple to me. As for Pakistan their specific situation is very troublesome. I have heard of reports of a US plan to secure Pakistan's nukes in case of hostile government takeover.

You have stated many times what you would do and diplomacy was not one of your options:




Diplomacy? Yeah right!!

Still doing two year old threads I see and not understanding hyperbol. And still trolling threads without contributing to them. Have a contribution or do you just enjoy trolling?

Yes I am aware of this however that can take awhile to figure out and the offending country could deny and even say those weapons were stolen.

Pfft, like that would work. When nuclear weapons are out of the cupboard, you can deny all you want. It's not going to stop the retaliation. The same would happen if a Russian or American man SADM went off in the other's cities.

And you're falling into the same problem again. Thinking that national leaders and power brokers would actually risk their personal selves in conflicts which will surely be the case if nukes are used. Can you name me an instance of that in the past century or two where that actually happened? Where power brokers put themselves in the front lines?


Well you better be good aim because if the first shot doesn't find it's mark you would end up dead.

Don't worry. You won't even see it coming.


Who would you trust more with nukes? The US a random European nation or Iran? Choice is simple to me. As for Pakistan their specific situation is very troublesome. I have heard of reports of a US plan to secure Pakistan's nukes in case of hostile government takeover.

I see my point has utterly flown over your head. It's not who I trust with nuclear technology. It's those who they deal it to. The US has dealt with regimes that are extremely unsavorable, as well as all the other nuclear powers. And all of them have at one point or another, been implicated in dealing with nuclear related technology in one form or another to these regimes.

And I wouldn't trust Israel either. They've still most likely got that scorched world idea of flinging their nukes at everyone if it looks like they might lose.

And you're falling into the same problem again. Thinking that national leaders and power brokers would actually risk their personal selves in conflicts which will surely be the case if nukes are used. Can you name me an instance of that in the past century or two where that actually happened? Where power brokers put themselves in the front lines?
.

Well what comes to mind right away is the Cuban missle crisis. Both leaders put themselves and their families in the line of fire. That is probably the biggest reason why we didn't come to blows.



Don't worry. You won't even see it coming.


I have a sixth sense for danger. ;)


I see my point has utterly flown over your head. It's not who I trust with nuclear technology. It's those who they deal it to. The US has dealt with regimes that are extremely unsavorable, as well as all the other nuclear powers. And all of them have at one point or another, been implicated in dealing with nuclear related technology in one form or another to these regimes.

And I wouldn't trust Israel either. They've still most likely got that scorched world idea of flinging their nukes at everyone if it looks like they might lose.

It didn't fly over. You are right about US and allied dealings however when did the US set up a nuke program for a questionable nation? Before you say it North Korea wasn't meant for weapons.

As far as anyone being implicated it has been mostly companies that do it. Can think of a few German, French and American companies selling banned components. How is that a national governments fault if it is a bad actor in a company trying to make a million.

I don't trust Israel either. At least we can agree on that point.

Still doing two year old threads I see and not understanding hyperbol. And still trolling threads without contributing to them. Have a contribution or do you just enjoy trolling?
I fully understand hyperbole and that is not what you are putting forward. Two years and nothing has changed about your pro war attitude. Just calling you on your BS. You seem to have no problem citing international law violations of countries that you abhor, all the while totally supporting violation of international laws by the US and Israel.

You tout diplomacy but you have been totally against diplomacy (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8266874&postcount=496). You are the warmonger.

I am the one pushing diplomacy (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11330993&postcount=1).

And it appears to be working in the case of North Korea?

US: North Korea to Disable Its Nuclear Plants This Year (http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-02-voa20.cfm?CFID=223742652&CFTOKEN=60670259)

Yes Corny, Chumblywumbly and I have got your number. ;)

Well what comes to mind right away is the Cuban missle crisis. Both leaders put themselves and their families in the line of fire. That is probably the biggest reason why we didn't come to blows.


Really? Then mind explaining what all that money was being spent on making nice big nuclear proof bunkers inside mountains for national leaders and their families along with military command and control so that they could still come out as king of the heap? They didn't risk nuts other than maybe re-election.

And playing chicken is a lot different from actually smacking into that truck which you say Iran would do.


I have a sixth sense for danger. ;)


It's overrated. And that sixth sense never works against unplanned and sudden attacks.


It didn't fly over. You are right about US and allied dealings however when did the US set up a nuke program for a questionable nation? Before you say it North Korea wasn't meant for weapons.

First you were saying tech, now you're going nuclear program? Big jump. And a whole lot harder to do logistically without being caught.


As far as anyone being implicated it has been mostly companies that do it. Can think of a few German, French and American companies selling banned components. How is that a national governments fault if it is a bad actor in a company trying to make a million.

Companies with ties to the governments?


I don't trust Israel either. At least we can agree on that point.

I don't see you recommending any kind of containment or disarmament policy for Israel though. Containment to make sure at the very least their ideas of "If I lose, I'll make everyone die." moot.

But I don't see that from you do I?

You forget that they are still at war with Syria.



You are still trying to build a strawman.

Last time I checked, even war is legally regulated.
And no, it's a comparison. A simple way of showing an underlying concept by providing the example of a similar, but more apparent situation.

Israel gave Syria a little smack, for being naughty.
Are they one of the family now?

*snip irrelevency*

I see you still do not have a clue as to my personality CH. You still think you know me and you still think I am a warmonger. Guess what? I am not ever nor have I ever been a warmonger despite what your brain is telling you.

Once you get over that then maybe you and I can at least have an intelligent conversation.

Concerning the historical facts... "it is what it is."

British promise of Arab independence during WW1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence

Report on the 1929 riots......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_Report


Example of expulsions in 1948......
Yitzhak Rabin wrote in his diary soon after Lydda's and Ramla's occupation on 10th-11th of July 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, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook". (Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207) .

Later, Rabin underlined the cruelty of the operation as mirrored in the reaction of his soldiers. He stated during an interview (which is still censored in Israeli publications to this day) with David Shipler from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." (Simha Flapan, p. 101)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html

I note you still haven't answered my query as to how a sense of "self-preservation" relates in any way to building civillian housing outside Israels borders.....

British promise of Arab independence during WW1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence

Report on the 1929 riots......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_Report


Example of expulsions in 1948......

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html

I note you still haven't answered my query as to how a sense of "self-preservation" relates in any way to building civillian housing outside Israels borders.....

Yes, there were some places in 1948 where Arabs were displaced by the Israelis. Those hostile villages like Lydda that compromised any contiguous line of defense that jeapordized the safety of Jewish population centers were forced to move. Just look at a map of the proposed land for Israel by the UN Mandate. It was crazy and indefenseable. But the Jews were willing to take the deal. The Arabs were not.

At the same time thousands of Arabs vowed to stay out of the conflict and received citizenship in the newly formed Jewish state, retaining their property, and being given the rights and benefits of any other Jewish citizen of Israel.

Yes the British promised "Palestine" to the Arabs. They also promised it to the Jews. The British failed to keep their promises to both sides. There is a fabulous book by the name of "O, Jerusalem" by Larry Collins. It chronicles the events leading up to the War of Independence and the opening salvos. Participants from all sides of the conflict are represented in the text.

Atrocities always happen in war... generally on both sides. All decisions cannot be based on black and white facts. Here is a fact that is black and white. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aligned himself with Adolph Hitler and was committed to the same extermination of the Jewish people as occurred in the Warsaw Ghetto. If Ben Gurion made a decision to displace the inhabitants of Lydda, that was a far more humane act of war than Husseini ever considered.

Today, the settler movement is a problem. However, the Arabs have never been called on to give back land they took from others in war. Repeatedly, Israel has done just that. If the Palestinians really want peace, they need to get their collective act together and come to the table prepared to make the hard decisions that will lead to peace.

I see you still do not have a clue as to my personality CH. You still think you know me and you still think I am a warmonger. Guess what? I am not ever nor have I ever been a warmonger despite what your brain is telling you.

Once you get over that then maybe you and I can at least have an intelligent conversation.
Why do your words betray you then? Even one of your email addys is warhawk@______ . Are you just mindlessly typing words at NSG to garner a negative response? Are you just trolling? You are a Bush apologist and you passionately defend the actions of Israel whether they are right or wrong. You are a warmonger who apparently has very little concern for the tens of thousands of innocent victims of aggressive US and Israeli actions. Remember, it was you that stated that you "would've carpet bombed" Iraq before sending in the military?

Maybe I don't know your personality......I can only make observations based on what you type here. Peace, or how to attain it, appears to be the furthest thing from your mind.

Anyone nuking or detonating a radiological device in Israel is committing suicide.

The problem is that at least some of Israeli's enemies aren't terribly rational and can't be deterred by the MAD concept. The Iranian government, for example.

The entire argument that people for Israel are making is "you can't trust those Arabs." This is going under the false assumption that we can always trust the Jews.

On the one side we have a stable, democractic Western nation (Israel) that only wants one thing from its neighbors: peace and recognition of its right to exist. On the other side we have a grab-bag of messianic religious whackos (Iran), brutal second generation dictatorships (Syria), oil-soaked Wahhabi loons and their various bat-shit crazy proxies.

I think it's clear who can bre trusted in that situation.

I trust neither, but I think leveling the playing field is productive rather than the opposite.

The thought of Syria or Iran getting nukes doesn't make you shudder? What possible good result could that lead to?

Why do your words betray you then? Even one of your email addys is warhawk@______ .

you left off the 911 at the end of it. JEE....you can not even get my email address right.

Are you just mindlessly typing words at NSG to garner a negative response? Are you just trolling?

We're all trolling by definition.

You are a Bush apologist and you passionately defend the actions of Israel whether they are right or wrong.

I see you do not realize that I do not support Bush 100% of the time. Hell I do not even support him 75% of the time. You still think you know me but you are failing miserably.

You are a warmonger who apparently has very little concern for the tens of thousands of innocent victims of aggressive US and Israeli actions.

Again. That's wrong. I see you have known absolutely nothing.

Remember, it was you that stated that you "would've carpet bombed" Iraq before sending in the military?

Notice the last four words. When fighting a war, fight it. Total War! Demoralize your enemy. That's the way to fight wars.

Maybe I don't know your personality......I can only make observations based on what you type here. Peace, or how to attain it, appears to be the furthest thing from your mind.

Peace is always on forfront of my mind I always want peace but I am not a fool to expect it all the time. I wanted peace to prevail with Iraq before we started to drop bombs. If I had known about this place before the war started, you would have probably known that. I always want diplomacy to succeed but at the sametime diplomacy will not succeed 100% of the time.

Yes, there were some places in 1948 where Arabs were displaced by the (....)were not. .

So now you suddenly remember that there were expulsions.

I might point out that, taking Haifa as an example, many Jews objected to the removals, so spare me the nonsense about "hostile" being a necessary prerequisite for ethnic cleansing.


At the same time thousands of Arabs vowed to stay out of the conflict and received citizenship in the newly formed Jewish state, retaining their property, and being given the rights and benefits of any other Jewish citizen of Israel. .

O dear o dear. That would be trying to imply that persons were expelled because they took up arms.....It was done by area and the people expelled were in fact civilians. Given the notoriously lackluster level of Palestinian resistance in 1947/48, it would be rather hard to have found 400,000-600,000 "hostiles" to expel.

The Bedouin seem remarkably unconvinced that they are given "the rights and benefits of any other Jewish citizen of Israel". And some of them are in the IDF.......
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=734190

...and the UN seem to agree with them.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=298088

And isn't there great problems for Arabs within Israel generally in regard to land issues and funding?

Yes the British promised "Palestine" to the Arabs. They also promised it to the Jews. The British failed to keep their promises to both sides. .

So you remember that now too...well well. It strikes me as odd that somebody can post a rather inaccurate and misleading piece when they seem far better informed on the issue than the ones that wrote it.


Atrocities always happen in war... generally on both sides. All decisions cannot be based on black and white facts. .

Jaysus no! I never fuckin knew.......


Here is a fact that is black and white. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aligned himself with Adolph Hitler and was committed to the same extermination of the Jewish people as occurred in the Warsaw Ghetto. If Ben Gurion made a decision to displace the inhabitants of Lydda, that was a far more humane act of war than Husseini ever considered..

Thats quite true about the Mufti. However soon after the end of the war he was sidelined by the Arab states, therefore throwing him in as the bogey man to justify every act of Israel thereafter is really rather pathetic.

I might add that I don't see it as my place to judge Ben Gurion, given the context of the times, but please don't try to either deny it happened, or start making false premises for much of it.


Today, the settler movement is a problem. However, the Arabs have never been called on to give back land they took from others in war. .

Syria removed from Lebanon, Iraq from Kuwait......



Repeatedly, Israel has done just that..

Gaza was given up to allow concentration on seizing and consolidating more of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. It required 30,000 troops to Guard 8,000 settlers there and was considered unviable. By maintaining control of all access and utilities, the withdrawal had the political advantage of appearing generous, while having in fact conceded nothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Since then theres been a surge of settlement building, and renewed efforts to lower the Arab population of Arab East Jerusalem.


If the Palestinians really want peace, they need to get their collective act together and come to the table prepared to make the hard decisions that will lead to peace.

Again placing the onus on the occupied and not the occupier. It is Israel that is colonising them. It is like negotiating with a burglar and his criminal backer (the US) to have your own goods returned, while the police are prevented from intervening.

The problem is that at least some of Israeli's enemies aren't terribly rational and can't be deterred by the MAD concept. The Iranian government, for example. ?

The "Samson" option is sane?



On the one side we have a stable, Democratic Western nation (Israel) that only wants one thing from its neighbors: peace and recognition of its right to exist.

...as well as the right to build colonies outside its borders, run those areas under its control as Apartheid-styled provinces, and maintain a single segment of its population as the majority within its recognised borders(thus, practically guaranteeing conflict down the line).......



I think it's clear who can bre trusted in that situation.


Yep. Barney.

So now you suddenly remember that there were expulsions.

I might point out that, taking Haifa as an example, many Jews objected to the removals, so spare me the nonsense about "hostile" being a necessary prerequisite for ethnic cleansing.



O dear o dear. That would be trying to imply that persons were expelled because they took up arms.....It was done by area and the people expelled were in fact civilians. Given the notoriously lackluster level of Palestinian resistance in 1947/48, it would be rather hard to have found 400,000-600,000 "hostiles" to expel.



The Bedouin seem remarkably unconvinced that they are given "the rights and benefits of any other Jewish citizen of Israel". And some of them are in the IDF.......
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=734190

...and the UN seem to agree with them.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=298088

And isn't there great problems for Arabs within Israel generally in regard to land issues and funding?


So you remember that now too...well well. It strikes me as odd that somebody can post a rather inaccurate and misleading piece when they seem far better informed on the issue than the ones that wrote it.



Jaysus no! I never fuckin knew.......



Thats quite true about the Mufti. However soon after the end of the war he was sidelined by the Arab states, therefore throwing him in as the bogey man to justify every act of Israel thereafter is really rather pathetic.

I might add that I don't see it as my place to judge Ben Gurion, given the context of the times, but please don't try to either deny it happened, or start making false premises for much of it.



Syria removed from Lebanon, Iraq from Kuwait......



Gaza was given up to allow concentration on seizing and consolidating more of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. It required 30,000 troops to Guard 8,000 settlers there and was considered unviable. By maintaining control of all access and utilities, the withdrawal had the political advantage of appearing generous, while having in fact conceded nothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Since then theres been a surge of settlement building, and renewed efforts to lower the Arab population of Arab East Jerusalem.



Again placing the onus on the occupied and not the occupier. It is Israel that is colonising them. It is like negotiating with a burglar and his criminal backer (the US) to have your own goods returned, while the police are prevented from intervening.

:gundge:

:gundge:


I'm glad to see you're able to back up your position.......

The "Samson" option is sane?

If Israel was on the verge of being wiped out, you would expect them to go quietly to their deaths? If the Arab hordes were about to enter Tel Aviv, I wouldn't blame Israel for taking one last shot at its enemies.

...as well as the right to build colonies outside its borders

Israeli settlements occupy, what, 3% or less of the West Bank? This is an incredibly miniscule amount of land. Frankly, this is just a made up complaint on the part of Arab governments to stoke the anti-Israel fires in order to cover their own shortcomings. And many of these settlements have been shut down in the past few years as Israel consolidates its defensive borders.

run those areas under its control as Apartheid-styled provinces

Israel is, more or less by definition, a Jewish state. It comprises a couple of percent of the land in the Middle East. There are a couple of dozen Arab states in the region- you're really trying to tell me that Arabs have a need or desire to live in Israel? Come on.

and maintain a single segment of its population as the majority within its recognised borders(thus, practically guaranteeing conflict down the line).......

What is wrong with Israel remaining as the Jewish homeland? Why should Israel be required to take in immigrants from the Muslim world? If anything, separating the two sides is the best way to ensure peace. Building the walls on its borders has been the best move the Israelis could have taken to lower conflict between them and the Palestinians.

If Israel was on the verge of being wiped out, you would expect them to go quietly to their deaths? If the Arab hordes were about to enter Tel Aviv, I wouldn't blame Israel for taking one last shot at its enemies. .

Haven't a clue exactly what the Samson option is, do you? To google with you.


Israeli settlements occupy( .....)borders.
.

More lies and half truths I see. Settlement building has increased since the pullout from Gaza.

The Israeli government says it plans to build 700 new homes in two settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5312084.stm

Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

Virtually not a week goes by without a new revelation, each more sensational and revolting than the previous one, about the building spree in West Bank settlements, in blatant violation of the law and in complete contradiction to official government policy. All this is happening with the knowledge of the defense officials responsible for enforcing the law in the territories, and with cooperation - by commission or omission - from the political echelon.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807444.html

Because of the settlements, Israel directly controls 60% of the west Bank. Theres roughly 250,000 settlers compared to 2.5 million Arabs, who are allowed to pretend to run the other 40% of the area.

I find it amusing that you say only 3% of the West Bank is occupied by settlements. You might explain why the planned route of the Wall will phiscally annex approximately 9% of it. Is the other 5% for "shits and giggles" as they say?


Israel is, more or less by definition, a Jewish state. It comprises a couple of percent of the land in the Middle East. There are a couple of dozen Arab states in the region- you're really trying to tell me that Arabs have a need or desire to live in Israel? Come on.

Demographics show that the Arab population of Israel is now 20%. They have far more children than Jewish families, whose birth rate generally is in line with European levels or thereabouts. What kind of atmosphere do you think that might lead to in 50 years? Does it strike you as a good idea to permanently guarantee one group power over another (which is what it amounts to)?


What is wrong with Israel remaining as the Jewish homeland? Why should Israel be required to take in immigrants from the Muslim world?

I never mentioned immigration. See above.

Um...there is only theird world country. Is there proof that there are 4th world countries?

ment to imply that their country is crappy in everything:D

Let me get this straight. Why are you goingo to start ranting about "arab haters" when no one here is expressing hatred for arabs?



the man said that they should bomb the crap out of the syrians, would you all remeber its the goverment(a neo-nazi group) and not the people?, seriously just finaince a revolt by the military or something, gotta be cheaper

Because it is essentially a rogue nation with WMDs.

man they dont have enough money to make it worthwhile

As opposed to Israel's neighbors who attacked them unprovokedly at least twice?


did you really have to go into that? :rolleyes:

Firstly, what has that got to do with anything? The actions of Israel’s neighbours, which are also pretty fucked up, doesn’t lesson the impact of Israel’s actions, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry.

Secondly, nobody is blameless in the Middle East, at least as far as state-actors go. Israel, as you well know, is not some innocent nation, being assailed on all sides by evil states. It has taken action that is itself illegal under international law, can be blamed for the idiotic violence in that region as much as Syria, Lebanon, etc.
From my point of view, they’re all mindless idiots with a death-wish.


true i accept that what you say makes sense

If Israel was on the verge of being wiped out, you would expect them to go quietly to their deaths? If the Arab hordes were about to enter Tel Aviv, I wouldn't blame Israel for taking one last shot at its enemies.

Yes, because Europe and Russia are doing the invading. Oh wait, they aren't...

Maybe if we called it the Skynet option, it'd make more sense to you.

Israel hitting a Syrain unoccupied undeclared early stage construction nuclear reactor is the definition of the old adage, A stitch in time saves nine.

You must have been watching a different channel. Lebanon did not kick Israel's ass!

I was in Israel when this all started and have eyewitness experience. Here is what happened.

Israel succumbed to world pressure (including that of the US) and did not move forward to complete the task quickly enough. The resulting world pressure forced Israel to retreat leaving Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah hurt... but not crushed. The UN stepped in once they thought it was safe and allowed Hezbollah to retake the ground they had been driven off of, allowed Syria and Iran to re-arm their puppet regime, and the gains won on the ground by Israel vaporized.

If the UN and the rest of the world had stayed out of the mix, we would see a vastly different reality in Lebanon and maybe even Syria. Iran would have lost a foothold and maybe stand down in the region for a time.

uh i was in lebanon and your sorta wrong, see hezballoh has been pissing the isrealis of with the constant rocket attacks, and when they kidnapped the 2 soliders that was the excuse they needed, the world pressure as you put it was due to the fact that the isrealis didnt do it fast enough and was embarssing for their patron USA, hezballoh is a legal national resistiance group allowed by the lebanese goverment, and if the US hadn't stayed out ya isreal would have won but the cost would have left it open to an attack by syria or iran

uh i was in lebanon and your sorta wrong, see hezballoh has been pissing the isrealis of with the constant rocket attacks, and when they kidnapped the 2 soliders that was the excuse they needed, the world pressure as you put it was due to the fact that the isrealis didnt do it fast enough and was embarssing for their patron USA, hezballoh is a legal national resistiance group allowed by the lebanese goverment, and if the US hadn't stayed out ya isreal would have won but the cost would have left it open to an attack by syria or iran

You do realize that Hezbollah was getting its head handed to them right?

You do realize that Hezbollah was getting its head handed to them right?

Maybe from your biased perspective yes, most observers think the conflict was indecisive, Israel suffered relatively high casualties for a guerrilla war and despite some tactical gains in the end achieved no strategic goals - Hezbollah is rebuilt and rearmed via the Syrian border, and it's resistance ensured it's popularity and streams of new recruits, so strategically Israel lost, the wiki file clearly puts out that Israel never won a single battle - it was all indecisive, and they were forced to just bomb Lebanese infrastructure and turn the people to Hezbollah, destroying convoys of civilians fleeing cities etc. Hezbollah today is stronger than it was because of the war, and the Lebanese people are united in their hatred of the Zionist enemy. Some classic IDF tactics from the war were 1) walking into towns and being ambushed, 2) advancing so fast that they left hezbollah positions behind them, and 3) charging tanks up the Wadi hill with Hezbollah firing kornets at them.

Maybe from your biased perspective yes, most observers think the conflict was indecisive, Israel suffered relatively high casualties for a guerrilla war and despite some tactical gains in the end achieved no strategic goals - Hezbollah is rebuilt and rearmed via the Syrian border, and it's resistance ensured it's popularity and streams of new recruits, so strategically Israel lost, the wiki file clearly puts out that Israel never won a single battle - it was all indecisive, and they were forced to just bomb Lebanese infrastructure and turn the people to Hezbollah, destroying convoys of civilians fleeing cities etc. Hezbollah today is stronger than it was because of the war, and the Lebanese people are united in their hatred of the Zionist enemy. Some classic IDF tactics from the war were 1) walking into towns and being ambushed, 2) advancing so fast that they left hezbollah positions behind them, and 3) charging tanks up the Wadi hill with Hezbollah firing kornets at them.

Believe me, if there's something Israelis would like to see in a cell today, it's probably the block of politicians who caused this war to look like it did. In terms of national and international support, they had everything: the US and Europe didn't complain at start, and almost 100% of the Israeli public was in favor of kicking Hizballah's ass. But somehow, and with a lot of talent, they managed to turn this into a mess. They didn't define strategic goals and left the military confused and unready.

The intelligence was there, and it was accurate, but how good can it be if after years of dealing with groups like Hamas and calling it a 'war', they suddenly realize they're facing a force much stronger and more ogranized than Hamas? In terms of preparing its military for that kind of war, Israel failed. In terms of achieving the goals of the war (return of the kidnapped soldiers, end of Hizballah's rule in south Lebanon) Israel failed. In terms of finishing it like the Israeli public wanted to finish it, Israel failed. This war opened an issue rarely discussed in Israel, about the IDF's efficiency in an actual guerilla war.

Three things were achieved, actually:
1. Nasrallah said himself that he wouldn't have ordered the kidnapping, knowing this would be Israel's response. He regretted the entire thing, and said next time Hiballah would think twice before doing it again.
2. The Israeli public learned about the incompetence of its leaders.

...hezballoh is a legal national resistiance group allowed by the lebanese goverment, and if the US hadn't stayed out ya isreal would have won but the cost would have left it open to an attack by syria or iran

Sorry but thats a terribly lame attempt at an excuse. Israel can make all of Syria and Iran glow in inside of 20 minutes regardless where any of its tanks, Air Force or Army goes. This is what keeps the Arab countries at bay not the once mythical Israeli army. The army has become a bloated beaucracy that has grown soft as they are now accustomed to fighting rock throwers and doing ninja attacks on small groups of wanted people in the middle of the night and not fighting real armies and real wars.

uh i was in lebanon and your sorta wrong, see hezballoh has been pissing the isrealis of with the constant rocket attacks, and when they kidnapped the 2 soliders that was the excuse they needed, the world pressure as you put it was due to the fact that the isrealis didnt do it fast enough and was embarssing for their patron USA, hezballoh is a legal national resistiance group allowed by the lebanese goverment, and if the US hadn't stayed out ya isreal would have won but the cost would have left it open to an attack by syria or iran


a 'legal national resistiance group'?????? Their legality isn't determined by the lebanese government.....the crimes they are guilty of are in israel. By the same logic that makes them 'legal', the IDF could pre-emptively nuke all the surrounding countries as long as it is legal within israel to do so.

You do realize that Hezbollah was getting its head handed to them right?
Not really. Hezbollah was taking casualties at a rate of about 4:1 (which is massively better than basically everyone else in the region, especially the militias), and had the Israelis gone further into Lebanon instead of poking some towns a bit, they'd have suffered yet stiffer resistance.

Maybe from your biased perspective yes, most observers think the conflict was indecisive, Israel suffered relatively high casualties for a guerrilla war and despite some tactical gains in the end achieved no strategic goals - Hezbollah is rebuilt and rearmed via the Syrian border, and it's resistance ensured it's popularity and streams of new recruits, so strategically Israel lost, the wiki file clearly puts out that Israel never won a single battle - it was all indecisive, and they were forced to just bomb Lebanese infrastructure and turn the people to Hezbollah, destroying convoys of civilians fleeing cities etc. Hezbollah today is stronger than it was because of the war, and the Lebanese people are united in their hatred of the Zionist enemy. Some classic IDF tactics from the war were 1) walking into towns and being ambushed, 2) advancing so fast that they left hezbollah positions behind them, and 3) charging tanks up the Wadi hill with Hezbollah firing kornets at them.
true

Sorry but thats a terribly lame attempt at an excuse. Israel can make all of Syria and Iran glow in inside of 20 minutes regardless where any of its tanks, Air Force or Army goes. This is what keeps the Arab countries at bay not the once mythical Israeli army. The army has become a bloated beaucracy that has grown soft as they are now accustomed to fighting rock throwers and doing ninja attacks on small groups of wanted people in the middle of the night and not fighting real armies and real wars.

uh i meant back then when no one was sure about the nukes

a 'legal national resistiance group'?????? Their legality isn't determined by the lebanese government.....the crimes they are guilty of are in israel. By the same logic that makes them 'legal', the IDF could pre-emptively nuke all the surrounding countries as long as it is legal within israel to do so.

what crimes that the IDF hasn't done please inform

a 'legal national resistiance group'?????? Their legality isn't determined by the lebanese government.....the crimes they are guilty of are in israel. By the same logic that makes them 'legal', the IDF could pre-emptively nuke all the surrounding countries as long as it is legal within israel to do so.

On top of that, Hezbollah is not resisting anything as Israel is no longer occupying any Lebanese territory.

On top of that, Hezbollah is not resisting anything as Israel is no longer occupying any Lebanese territory.
Were the Lebanese Army not such a pisstake, then I'd be inclined to agree, but on the other hand, I'd say that were Lebanon to be re-occupied by Israel, then a force like Hezbollah is kind of useful. Much more useful to the average Lebanse citizen than the bloody SLA, anyway.

Were the Lebanese Army not such a pisstake, then I'd be inclined to agree, but on the other hand, I'd say that were Lebanon to be re-occupied by Israel, then a force like Hezbollah is kind of useful. Much more useful to the average Lebanse citizen than the bloody SLA, anyway.

True, but Hezbollah is also the REASON Israel reinvaded. You don't get kudos for helping out with disasters you're the cause of.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.


Yes they do, every country has the right to attack any country that they believe is going to harm them in the near future. That includes by asymetrical means, such as Hezbollah or HAMAS, both of which recieve large amounts of funding and training from Syria.

On top of that, Hezbollah is not resisting anything as Israel is no longer occupying any Lebanese territory.
sheba farms currnetly disputed

True, but Hezbollah is also the REASON Israel reinvaded. You don't get kudos for helping out with disasters you're the cause of.

then why the US get kudos for removing saddam?

sheba farms currnetly disputed

The current border between Israel and Lebanon was recognized internationally and by the UN. Furthermore, those farms were never a Lebanese territory, but a Syrian one. In a report published in September 2006, UN secretary himself stated that the continuation of Hizballah activity in south Lebanon under the claim that the farms are still under occupation, were against the security council's resolution.

So no, Hizballah had no reason whatsoever to attack Israel. That still ignoring the fact that it pounded Israeli towns across the border for years after Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

sheba farms currnetly disputed

Its not part of Lebanon nor has it ever been. Ergo. No lebanonese territory is under Israeli occupation so a need for a national resistence movement is gone. They are illegal under UN resolutions and need to be disarmed.

The current border between Israel and Lebanon was recognized internationally and by the UN. Furthermore, those farms were never a Lebanese territory, but a Syrian one. In a report published in September 2006, UN secretary himself stated that the continuation of Hizballah activity in south Lebanon under the claim that the farms are still under occupation, were against the security council's resolution.

So no, Hizballah had no reason whatsoever to attack Israel. That still ignoring the fact that it pounded Israeli towns across the border for years after Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

well in all honesty the UN can go to hell!, they don't do squat, for us, so scr** them, also syria itself said that its lebanese.
and isreal has no right to take 1967 palestinan lands, and imprison thousands of palestinans so there!, also they do have a right to defend their palestinan brothers.

Its not part of Lebanon nor has it ever been. Ergo. No lebanonese territory is under Israeli occupation so a need for a national resistence movement is gone. They are illegal under UN resolutions and need to be disarmed.

uh not all land has to belong to a country from the begining to make it theirs, i cite USA, italy, spain, and every other cvountry that exists currently also as said previously, the UN can kiss my arab a**! they have no business allowing isreali agression while condeming arab agression

Haven't a clue exactly what the Samson option is, do you? To google with you.

I've read some quotes from historians and college professors who claim that the Samson option might involve attacks against Europe, in addition to taking out Arab capitals. There is no indication that attacking Europe is in any way an option seriously considered by the Israeli government.

More likely, this is disinformation intended to make the Europeans pay attention in order to prevent any chance of Israel's existence being threatened.

More lies and half truths I see. Settlement building has increased since the pullout from Gaza.


I think your articles mentioned a grand total of about 730 new homes being built. Big whoop.


Because of the settlements, Israel directly controls 60% of the west Bank.

How did you come up with that number?

I find it amusing that you say only 3% of the West Bank is occupied by settlements. You might explain why the planned route of the Wall will phiscally annex approximately 9% of it. Is the other 5% for "shits and giggles" as they say?

The wall is a different issue from the settlements. The wall is designed to exclude the Palestinians from Israel proper, as well as to create defensible borders from Israel. If it needs to annex some portion of the West Bank to achieve these goals, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over what is, at the end of the day, a miniscule amount of land.


Demographics show that the Arab population of Israel is now 20%. They have far more children than Jewish families, whose birth rate generally is in line with European levels or thereabouts. What kind of atmosphere do you think that might lead to in 50 years? Does it strike you as a good idea to permanently guarantee one group power over another (which is what it amounts to)?

I don't know the answer. If the Arab population of Israel ends up becoming hostile to the Jewish population, there are going to be a lot of problems. But such problems aren't Israel's fault.

Nobody has any justification to bomb anything on foreign soil.

If the thing on foreign soil is a direct threat to your country and your people, that should be justification enough.

well in all honesty the UN can go to hell!, they don't do squat, for us, so scr** them, also syria itself said that its lebanese.

If Syria does in fact claim that the territory is now Lebanese, that's changing the rules halfway through the game. Since Syria doesn't actually control the territory now, it can't actually give it away.
and isreal has no right to take 1967 palestinan lands,

Israel defended itself from Arab invasion and ended up occupying enemy territory after beating the crap out of the inept Arab armies. There is nothing wrong with occupying enemy territory after beating them in a defensive war. You all started a war, got your asses handed to you and have been whining about it for 40 years. It's kind of pathetic.

and imprison thousands of palestinans so there!,

Israel has every right to imprison terrorists and their supporters.

Israel has every right to imprison terrorists and their supporters.
I believe RP is referring to Israeli occupation in general, rather than specific instances of imprisoning criminals.

Collective punishment seemingly doesn’t work, and moreover is contrary to international law, under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The UN can go to hell!

If that's what you think...

Syria itself said that its lebanese.

Syria says what Syria whats people to think. The fact is, whether you like it or not, that the Shab'a farms were a Syrian territory, and never a Lebanese one. Those farms are a part of the Golan Heights, and were captured along with the entire area in the 1967 war. Labanon was not involved in the war at all, so suddenly claiming the farms are a Lebanese territory is absurd. Those claims are for one purpose alone: Maintaining an excuse for Hizballah not to disarm.

and isreal has no right to take 1967 palestinan lands, and imprison thousands of palestinans so there!

This thread is about Israel-Syria relations, which somehow turned to an Israel-Labanon relations thread. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not related by any way to the Golan Heights, the shab'a farms, or Lebanon.

They do have a right to defend their palestinan brothers.

Palestinians are Sunni. Hizballah are Shi'i.
Palestinians are Palestinian, Hizballah are Lebanese.
Claiming they are 'brothers' is like claiming Americans and British are brothers.
Even if it was true, then no, they don't have the right to do so.

uh not all land has to belong to a country from the begining to make it theirs, i cite USA, italy, spain, and every other cvountry that exists currently also as said previously, the UN can kiss my arab a**! they have no business allowing isreali agression while condeming arab agression

Actually...they have condemned Israeli actions in the past so you got that point wrong. As to the rest of this post, its nonsequiter. According to the UN, it is Syrian soil and not Lebanonese. I'll take their word over the SYrians any day of the millenium.

I've read some quotes from historians and college professors who claim that the Samson option might involve attacks against Europe, in addition to taking out Arab capitals. There is no indication that attacking Europe is in any way an option seriously considered by the Israeli government. .

I never said it was. I just pointed out that you haven't a fucking clue about it. And I was right too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option Its a lunatic plan.


More (..straw...)threatened. .

See above.



I think your articles mentioned a grand total of about 730 new homes being built. Big whoop.

It was in answer to your quite untrue statement that settlement building had ceased. However if you want to play the numbers game....

The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law. The plan, which has yet to receive final approval, would involve building about 20,000 homes.

Putting the lie to your no settlement crap again.....
Despite declarations by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, there has been apparently no progress toward dismantling outposts.

Since the beginning of the month, nearly 90 trailers were placed illegally in the West Bank. A Defense Ministry aerial survey found new mobile homes in illegal outposts such as Givat Assaf, near Beit El, and Amona, near Ofra. Some of the new mobile homes were also placed in veteran settlements.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807108.html


Any response to this, apart from "Big Whoop"? Gundge smilies maybe?


How did you come up with that number?

Not the same way you did your 3%. You would have felt my hand during the process..


The wall is a different issue from the settlements. The wall is designed to exclude the Palestinians from Israel proper, as well as to create defensible borders from Israel. If it needs to annex some portion of the West Bank to achieve these goals, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over what is, at the end of the day, a miniscule amount of land.

Of course you aren't. Its not your land and they're only Arabs anyway...




I don't know the answer.

Well that goes without saying. I just wanted to see the effort made. And yes, you refused to admit any possible wrong doing by Israel - what a fucking shock.

If Syria does in fact claim that the territory is now Lebanese, that's changing the rules halfway through the game. Since Syria doesn't actually control the territory now, it can't actually give it away.


Israel defended itself from Arab invasion and ended up occupying enemy territory after beating the crap out of the inept Arab armies. There is nothing wrong with occupying enemy territory after beating them in a defensive war. You all started a war, got your asses handed to you and have been whining about it for 40 years. It's kind of pathetic.



Israel has every right to imprison terrorists and their supporters.

uh what rules of what game?
also so what if they don't actually control it they technically have it as a part of their goverment, also its like 3 acres what's the big deal about giving it to lebanon? uh i know

Actually...they have condemned Israeli actions in the past so you got that point wrong. As to the rest of this post, its nonsequiter. According to the UN, it is Syrian soil and not Lebanonese. I'll take their word over the SYrians any day of the millenium.

but did they do anything about it? all actual actions have been directed at us and the UN has no business deciding about things they cant't control, i'll take the word of an arab before a buracreat

uh what rules of what game?
also so what if they don't actually control it they technically have it as a part of their goverment, also its like 3 acres what's the big deal about giving it to lebanon? uh i know

And what is it then eh? It was never lebonese to begin with nor has it ever. There is no treaty on file making it Lebanese territory as specified by the UN Charter that both nations are a part of. The UN knows it is Syrian Territory as do the Israelis. So tell me, what treaty makes it Lebanese territory and is it registered with the UN. I know the answer to the last part.

If that's what you think....
yes so what what the f*** are they gonna do!?!?! send secret assasins to kill me?

Syria says what Syria whats people to think. The fact is, whether you like it or not, that the Shab'a farms were a Syrian territory, and never a Lebanese one. Those farms are a part of the Golan Heights, and were captured along with the entire area in the 1967 war. Labanon was not involved in the war at all, so suddenly claiming the farms are a Lebanese territory is absurd. Those claims are for one purpose alone: Maintaining an excuse for Hizballah not to disarm.
.
then why doesn't isreal hand the f****** farms over?
This thread is about Israel-Syria relations, which somehow turned to an Israel-Labanon relations thread. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not related by any way to the Golan Heights, the shab'a farms, or Lebanon..
Palestinians are Sunni. Hizballah are Shi'i.
Palestinians are Palestinian, Hizballah are Lebanese.
they don't have the right to do so.
We are all arabs and we turn on outsiders first and then our own , those designations are from western definition
We are all muslim and you are supposed to aid yourfellow muslim
why don't they have the right

And what is it then eh? It was never lebonese to begin with nor has it ever. There is no treaty on file making it Lebanese territory as specified by the UN Charter that both nations are a part of. The UN knows it is Syrian Territory as do the Israelis. So tell me, what treaty makes it Lebanese territory and is it registered with the UN. I know the answer to the last part.
please answer me this you make good points, but its like 3 acres, what is there to fight about, tell me this would you fight a war over 3 acres, and do not say its the principle of the thing

its like 3 acres what's the big deal about giving it to lebanon?

Because It's not a fucking Lebanese territory! It was captured during the 1967 war, in which Lebanon was not involved. Secondly, it's larger than 3 acres, and it is mostly on mountain called Har Dov (The Israeli name for Shab'a farms), and it is used by the IDF to secure that area of the border.

We are all arabs and we turn on outsiders first and then our own , those designations are from western definition
We are all muslim and you are supposed to aid yourfellow muslim
why don't they have the right

Killing innocent men, women, and Children goes against what the Koran says. It also says that JEWS and Christians are our brothers and not to be harmed. I see many muslims have fucked that one up over the years.

Because It's not a fucking Lebanese territory! It was captured during the 1967 war, in which Lebanon was not involved. Secondly, it's larger than 3 acres, and it is mostly on mountain called Har Dov (The Israeli name for Shab'a farms), and it is used by the IDF to secure that area of the border.

its is A FEW ACRES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its like a fucking town a some farms what fucking security are you talking about? if you cant prove what your talking about then shut up

why don't they have the right

Because it's not their business. What goes on between Israel and the Palestinians is Israel's and the Palestinian's business, not some armed fanatic militia inside Lebanon. So no, they don't have the right to harm Israeli civilians just because they think Israel is doing wrong, as long as this wrong doing is not directed at them.

Killing innocent men, women, and Children goes against what the Koran says. It also says that JEWS and Christians are our brothers and not to be harmed. I see many muslims have fucked that one up over the years.

and how is it ok that the isreal are killing innocent women ansd children also defensive jihad against non muslims is ok

Because it's not their business. What goes on between Israel and the Palestinians is Israel's and the Palestinian's business, not some armed fanatic militia inside Lebanon. So no, they don't have the right to harm Israeli civilians just because they think Israel is doing wrong, as long as this wrong doing is not directed at them.

it is their business YOU DEFEND THE WEAKER MUSLIMS FROM OPRESSIOn, SO THERE!

what fucking security are you talking about? if you cant prove what your talking about then shut up

I'm Israeli, I'm fully aware of what territories my nation controls. Do you want me to post a map?

And again... It's NOT a Lebanese territory, so the entire discussion is idiotic.

I'm Israeli, I'm fully aware of what territories my nation controls. Do you want me to post a map?

And again... It's NOT a Lebanese territory, so the entire discussion is idiotic.
well i',m lebanese i come from balleback where hizbaullah started and yes i would like a map so i can understand your point

how is it ok that the isreal are killing innocent women ansd children

Nobody said it is. We're talking about Hizballah here, not the Palestinians. Hizballah has no right to do what it did, because Israel did not attack Hizballah or Lebanon. Can you understand that?

defensive jihad against non muslims is ok

Wtf?

please answer me this you make good points, but its like 3 acres, what is there to fight about, tell me this would you fight a war over 3 acres, and do not say its the principle of the thing

Welcome to the Middle East where Rationality gets thrown out the window. As to why they fight? The Arab Nations do not like Israel and will fight them. Israel will defend themselves when attacked. If you look at all of their wars, most of them were defensive wars for they were started by someone else.

As to the 3 acres, Its occupied by the IDF and is a key line of attack/defense for both sides. He who controls this section can decide the fate of the area. It was used to invade Israel and when the Six Days War ended, it went to the IDF. Will they give it up? Maybe one day but not until Syria recognizes their right to exist and signs a peace treaty with them like Jordan and Egypt have done.

Nobody said it is. We're talking about Hizballah here, not the Palestinians. Hizballah has no right to do what it did, because Israel did not attack Hizballah or Lebanon. Can you understand that?



Wtf?

uh you are condeming hizbullah without codeming the IDF, which is the palestinan NKVD, civil war please explain?
What WTF

and how is it ok that the isreal are killing innocent women ansd children

If they do it intentionally it is not ok.

also defensive jihad against non muslims is ok

Bull fucking shit! Suicide bombings in shopping malls? Rocket attacks across international borders into civilian population centers? That's all ok? Thank God I was not born in the Middle East. I would not be able to think for myself!

If they do it intentionally it is not ok.



Bull fucking shit! Suicide bombings in shopping malls? Rocket attacks across international borders into civilian population centers? That's all ok? Thank God I was not born in the Middle East. I would not be able to think for myself!

yes if intentionally, also i said DENFENSIVE JIHAD AS DEFINED BY THE KORAN Not crazy ass preachers who attack civilians, the koran says that in war, civilians are to be left alone

its is A FEW ACRES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its like a fucking town a some farms what fucking security are you talking about? if you cant prove what your talking about then shut up

I see you do not have a clue as to the situation. I also see you do not know where the Sheeba Farms are located. Its the god damn high ground in the region.

it is their business YOU DEFEND THE WEAKER MUSLIMS FROM OPRESSIOn, SO THERE!

No it is not. By attacking innocent people intentionally, they show themselves to be terrorists. By killing innocent people intentionally, you damage your cause across the planet. Why do you think many nations cut funds to Hamas when they took power because of the corruption of Fatah? Its because they supported terrorist activities directed against innocent Israelis.

I see you do not have a clue as to the situation. I also see you do not know where the Sheeba Farms are located. Its the god damn high ground in the region.

i know its between lebanon syrian and isreal, also isreali military would have that place burned to the ground in seconds if a rocket came from there due to the few inhabitents

uh you are condeming hizbullah without codeming the IDF, which is the palestinan NKVD, civil war please explain?
What WTF

WTF= What the Fuck!

As to the rest of the post...:rolleyes: That's all I say to that.

No it is not. By attacking innocent people intentionally, they show themselves to be terrorists. By killing innocent people intentionally, you damage your cause across the planet. Why do you think many nations cut funds to Hamas when they took power because of the corruption of Fatah? Its because they supported terrorist activities directed against innocent Israelis.
i believe the british call it an eye for an eye, i know its wrong but thats what happens

WTF= What the Fuck!

As to the rest of the post...:rolleyes: That's all I say to that.

i know what the fuck means im asking to what is it responding to

yes if intentionally, also i said DENFENSIVE JIHAD AS DEFINED BY THE KORAN

KILLING INNOCENTS INTENTIONALLY GOES AGAINST YOUR FUCKING HOLY BOOK!!!! It does not matter if its defensive or not. IT IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR MOST HOLY BOOK!

Not crazy ass preachers who attack civilians, the koran says that in war, civilians are to be left alone

That's true! So tell me why Hezbollah were firing rockets nto Israeli cities if civilians are to be left alone?

yes if intentionally, also i said DENFENSIVE JIHAD AS DEFINED BY THE KORAN Not crazy ass preachers who attack civilians, the koran says that in war, civilians are to be left alone
Oh really? Well maybe you should look at these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902129.html
Reports of Hezbollah deliberately attacking civilians


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={13923FCF-DFE6-47A6-AC42-11382FBCC978}
Denying attacks against civilians, despite proof of doing so.

Elsewhere in his book Chomsky claims that, in launching its attacks against Israel, Hezbollah “carefully avoided civilian areas” and assured his readers that Hezbollah attacks were always “retaliatory.” Israel through Chomsky's eyes presented quite a different story. Dispensing altogether with the studied euphemisms that marked his descriptions of Hezbollah, Chomsky unequivocally denounced Israel for using “terror weapons” to commit “atrocities” such as targeting “civilians” with “no provocation”.

The resulting effort bore little resemblance to fact. Rather than consider well-documented reports of Hezbollah’s repeated shelling (at its Iranian masters' prompting) of Northern Israel, killing women and children in the process, Chomsky rejected the reports as so much American and Israeli propaganda. How after all, could the Great and Little Satans be telling the truth?

Rather than reflect on the fact that Hezbollah terrorists deliberately entrenched themselves among Arab civilians to cause the casualties so that Chomsky could protest, Chomsky falsely charged that the Israeli military targeted the civilians, a claim which no reasonable human being could make. Even the anti-Israel UN felt compelled to acknowledge that “Hezbollah had resorted to using civilian areas to provide a human shield for its terrorist activity.”


And how about the fact that Hezbollah hides themselves within civilian buildings, so that Israel is forced to strike those areas, killing civilians? Cowardly? I think so. They put their own civilians in danger for their own cause. Israel protects their citizens. Key difference right there.

KILLING INNOCENTS INTENTIONALLY GOES AGAINST YOUR FUCKING HOLY BOOK!!!! It does not matter if its defensive or not. IT IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR MOST HOLY BOOK!



That's true! So tell me why Hezbollah were firing rockets nto Israeli cities if civilians are to be left alone?

hey NO CUrSING THE KORAN!!!!!!!!!, how is it my fault theyre complete retards who dont pay attention to the KoraN!!!!!!!!!!!

KILLING INNOCENTS INTENTIONALLY GOES AGAINST YOUR FUCKING HOLY BOOK!!!! It does not matter if its defensive or not. IT IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR MOST HOLY BOOK!



That's true! So tell me why Hezbollah were firing rockets nto Israeli cities if civilians are to be left alone?

hey NO CUrSING THE KORAN!!!!!!!!!, how is it my fault theyre complete retards who dont pay attention to the KoraN!!!!!!!!!!!

KILLING INNOCENTS INTENTIONALLY GOES AGAINST YOUR FUCKING HOLY BOOK!!!! It does not matter if its defensive or not. IT IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR MOST HOLY BOOK!



That's true! So tell me why Hezbollah were firing rockets nto Israeli cities if civilians are to be left alone?

hey NO CUrSING THE KORAN!!!!!!!!!, how is it my fault theyre complete retards who dont pay attention to the KoraN!!!!!!!!!!!

i believe the british call it an eye for an eye, i know its wrong but thats what happens

That phrase pre-dates the British I'm afraid.

listen did you hear me say thats ok did you?