NationStates Jolt Archive

we'll never know. You think we stoop so low as to actually own that Swedish crap?

ANd those that do mysteriously vanish in sudden bursts of energy. *nods knowingly*

You think that being a Jew is intrinsically wrong?

I do, but then again I think that being a part of any organised religion is intrinsically wrong be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism et al.

Oh, let's not forget to mention that the land they were given actually belonged to someone else who now hates their guts.

Not really. That land, prior to the creation of Israel, was owned by the British and under UN mandate. Before that it belonged to the Ottomans, who aren't exactly around any more, and which is most closely succeeded by Turkey

or シャープ株式会社 as its known in its home country of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_Corporation


......Thats the joke >.>

As was pointed out earlier, the two are not comparable. The US was not planning on colonising japan.

Irrelevant - the definition of defeat and victory are no different or less important. As far as I care if Israel wants the land that badly and the Palestinians can't stop them then so be it. Territory has been the subject of wars for centuries - even for England as recently as 1982. So don't go getting all high and righteous just because LAND is involved...

So would you advocate a bloody massacre of the civilian population, men, women and children alike? Killing off about a million people to passify the remaining population?

Hmmm. Good thing there were no civilians in Nagasaki, Okinawa, Dresden, etc. War sucks - there is no such thing as a sterile conflict.

Well...yeh. If you care to ignore international law which says war for territorial aggrandizement is illegal. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion - carry on.

LOL. That's all I can say. LO effin L. You should ask Santa to tell them that next Christmas.... and the tooth fairy. Maye even the Easter Bunny too. Got any more fairy tales to share with us?

Not really. That land, prior to the creation of Israel, was owned by the British and under UN mandate. Before that it belonged to the Ottomans, who aren't exactly around any more, and which is most closely succeeded by Turkey

Do you think the people who lived there honestly gave a fuck?

Does one have to be a Nazi to think there is something utterly wrong with Judaism and its followers??

Sweeping generalizations get you absolutely nowhere, and just make you look like a small-minded bigot.

Specify what you don't like and what, exactly, you think is wrong with the followers of Judaism.

Not really. That land, prior to the creation of Israel, was owned by the British and under UN mandate. Before that it belonged to the Ottomans, who aren't exactly around any more, and which is most closely succeeded by TurkeyWhat do you mean with "owned by the British" ?? A land belongs to its inhabitants. Palestine was never a British colony, it was only supposed to be administered by the British on behalf of its inhabitants (Palestinian Arabs and Jews). Or what?

What do you mean with "owned by the British" ?? A land belongs to its inhabitants. Palestine was never a British colony, it was only supposed to be administered by the British on behalf of its inhabitants (Palestinian Arabs and Jews). Or what?

I think we should give it to Italy...Judea was a Roman Province....

It's a choice of ideology I cannot approve of. Same goes for Evangelicals.

It's quite redundant often to call it a choice, if you've been brought up in a very orthodox Jewish environment, it's a little difficult not to end up being a Jew. There's also a huge amount of different types of Jews, treating them like on giant hivemind is foolish. Plus, disapproving of their religion, is not the same as thinking Jews are intrinsically bad.

Hmmm. Good thing there were no civilians in Nagasaki, Okinawa, Dresden, etc. War sucks - there is no such thing as a sterile conflict.
You failed to answer my question.

So would you - today, in the current situation (which, btw, isn't a situation of Total War) - advocate a bloody massacre of the civilian population, men, women and children alike? Killing off about a million people to passify the remaining population?

Sweeping generalizations get you absolutely nowhere, and just make you look like a small-minded bigot.

Specify what you don't like and what, exactly, you think is wrong with the followers of Judaism.What I don't like.: the god in teh bible, mainly because of his genocidal and hateful nature. Following that I don't like people who choose such a god for worship. It is like praying to someone like Stalin or Hitler.

What the holy shit are you talking about?

Holy shit appears to be the subject of choice, yes.

It's quite redundant often to call it a choice, if you've been brought up in a very orthodox Jewish environment, it's a little difficult not to end up being a Jew.

I have to say.....Thats crap....I grew up and live in the Middle of the Freakin Bible Belt...with the most Religious People you ever laid eyes on...

Yet, Im not religious at all....

I think we should give it to Italy...Judea was a Roman Province....Wow, that is not such a bad idea after all. ;)

What do you mean with "owned by the British" ??

Exactly what I said, Britain claimed the land in world war I from the ottomans.

A land belongs to its inhabitants.

"land" falls into the sovereign jurisdiction of the government that controls it. The British government controlled the area we refer to as Palestine, thus it was British land. The British government voluntarily handed over the administration of that land to the League of Nations.

Palestine was never a British colony,

The Egyptian Expedition force would have begged to differ.

it was only supposed to be administered by the British on behalf of its inhabitants (Palestinian Arabs and Jews). Or what?

Because Britain voluntarily seceded control over the land to the League of Nations. From 1917 to 1920 the land was controlled by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration of the United Kingdom. It wasn't until 1920 that the mandate took effect. However, the Armistice of Moudros, which officially withdrew the Ottoman Empire as the ruler of that territory was signed in 1918. From 1918 to 1920 the Ottomans did not control Palestine, and there was no Mandate. Thus the only legitimate governmental power controlling the land referred to as "Palestine" was Great Britian. Thus for 2 years the ONLY governmental authority in that area was british.

Wow, that is not such a bad idea after all. ;)

I was joking....But...now that I think about it...I actually wouldnt have any objections to it, lol....

LOL. That's all I can say. LO effin L. You should ask Santa to tell them that next Christmas.... and the tooth fairy. Maye even the Easter Bunny too. Got any more fairy tales to share with us?
Your incoherent babbling aside, have you a point?

I'd prefer to pray for the return of the Ancient Ones. If you think the God of Abraham is cruel, wait until you witness the deeds of Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos. Result? The total collapse and apocalyptic depopulation of the entire Middle East. Next stop: the rest of the world!

Your incoherent babbling aside, have you a point?

I believe it has something to do with Believing that International Law, especially one dealing with a primary drive for war over the entire course of human history, is going to stop anyone...

Is alot like believing in Santa and actually expecting him to show up on your rooftop with Reindeer and Presents.....

I believe it has something to do with Believing that International Law, especially one dealing with a primary drive for war over the entire course of human history, is going to stop anyone...

Is alot like believing in Santa and actually expecting him to show up on your rooftop with Reindeer and Presents.....

Ah.

"Bullshit" would have sufficed.

Ah.

"Bullshit" would have sufficed.

I know...but, i love that description so much........:fluffle:

Not really. That land, prior to the creation of Israel, was owned by the British and under UN mandate. Before that it belonged to the Ottomans, who aren't exactly around any more, and which is most closely succeeded by Turkey


It was never owned by the Brits. It was administerdd under league of nations mandate as a class "A" territory, in prepartion for it being granted self rule.

with the most Religious People you ever laid eyes on...


I highly doubt that. Anyway, I'm mainly taking about orthodox Jews here, it's actually pretty different to an evangelical Christian environment.

I highly doubt that. Anyway, I'm mainly taking about orthodox Jews here, it's actually pretty different to an evangelical Christian environment.

Well...My dad actually believes the world is going to end in 2012...and the only reason the US exists is because God put it on this Earth to defend Israel from teh ebil Muslims...


I thought it was pretty hard to top, lol....

I'd prefer to pray for the return of the Ancient Ones. If you think the God of Abraham is cruel, wait until you witness the deeds of Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos. Result? The total collapse and apocalyptic depopulation of the entire Middle East. Next stop: the rest of the world!
Ah, you don't get it. The god of Abraham is not real, just as any other god. However, the concept of that god is real and what is associated with it. Belief is independent of the reality of the thing one believes in. But whenever one believes in a bad concept and acts according to it, that makes that person a bad person. If you believe in the god of the Bible and think that the atrocities he and his followers commit in the Bible are somehow justifiable, you are a bad person, no matter whether those atrocities really happened or whether that god is real.

It was never owned by the Brits. It was administerdd under league of nations mandate as a class "A" territory, in prepartion for it being granted self rule.Was it ever self ruled then?

Was it ever self ruled then?
The part that is now Israel/Palestine, no.

Now, here’s the thing, let’s drop the hyperboli, drop the hysterics, and talk about this rationally. First, let’s accept some basic facts as a premise. There’s been no country known as Palestine. The land has changed hands numerous times over the course of history, and numerous nations, or successor nations, could have claim to it. Mainly Italy, Vatican City, Britain, Turkey and Syria all have historical connections to this land, dating back to pre Ottoman days. The area was refered to as “Palestine”, but that wasn’t a nation state, it was a geographical area, doesn’t make it a country, any more than “upstate New York” or “the Bay area” is a country

Now if we’re not talking countries, but rather cultural groups, then yes, Islamic Arabs do have a cultural connection to that land, but so do Christian and jews. In fact, jews have a connection to that land before there was such a thing as a muslim or an arab. Now, true jews largely lost that land some time ago, but not completely. Moreover, if we’re going to use the argument to suggest that this land is “Palestinian” and the Israeli jews forced them off it, and the fact that they were forced off it does not give up ownership, then the argument should equally apply to ancient jews, who were forced off it by…Christians and Muslims. So if we’re going to use the argument that being forced off your land doesn’t cede your ownership of it, and it’s a fairly good argument, then let’s be intellectually honest and recognize that the argument applies to jews just as well.

Now, much of this land was taken as spoils of war, namely, the Six Day War. Which was an aggressive act AGAINST Israel, which Israel won, and claimed land in conquest. Now again, there’s mixed minds on this, on one hand, Israel was attacked, and won. The fact that they conquered land…well, you attacked someone and lost, you don’t get to cry that you lost land in a war YOU waged. On the other hand, a lot of the people who LIVED on that land just wanted to do so peacefully, had no stake in the outcome of that war.

So yes, on one hand, Israel legitimately claimed land in a response to being attacked in an act of war. On the other hand, in so doing, they displaced people who were LIVING THERE. I understand why that would cause hostility against the country, when your land gets taken. It’s hard to remain objective and tell yourself “well, our leaders waged war and lost, so we should blame THEM for this”, the typical response is to blame the people controlling the tanks, not the machinations of leaders that angered the tank wielders. There is some legitimate cause for hostility there.

And Israel hasn’t been exactly the best neighbor, their withdrawl efforts have been punctuated by efforts of de facto expansion. But again, on the other hand, if you withdraw, and get bombed, why withdraw? Why give in if it won’t help you? Sure, “the right thing to do” would be to give all the land back and withdraw totally, but it’s hard to be benevolent when you’re surrounded by people who have stated it is their mission in life to see you destroyed. Having a bit of a buffer zone between them and you can seem awfully appealing. Doesn’t give much comfort however to the people that were LIVING in that buffer zone. It’s a tough balancing act, trying to be helpful and a good neighbor, while at the same time living next to people who have made it quite clear that, if given half a chance, they’d kill every single one of you. Again, Israel’s complex geopolitical situation doesn’t help assuage the anger of someone whose house just got bulldozed.

But please, let’s stop the hysterics, let’s stop the nonsense. Let’s stop talking about genocide. It’s insulting. There’s no genocide. There’s no attempt by Israel to wipe any people off the earth. Israel has had peaceful coexistence with Egypt and Jordan, once those countries stated that they’d halt hostilities against Israel, and recognize its right to exist. And since then, they get along alright. Not great, but no bombings either. Let’s also stop acting like Israel is intent on wiping out the Palestinian people. Sure, there are things that Israel could do to make the lives of Palestinians better. Allowing medical convoys would be a nice start. But it’s not like Israel put an embargo on Palestine, they’re just not letting them use their sovereign land. Which is Israel’s right. Again, maybe not the nicest thing to do, but let’s keep in mind that when Israel has allowed trucks through their land, the tendency for some Palestinians has been to put bombs in them. There are other routs to Palestine. Egypt for one. Egyptians haven’t been too terribly keen on allowing convoys in and out of Palestine EITHER. For pretty much the same reason. Sure, Israel could be more open, it could be more benevolent. It could allow more access to and from Palestine through their borders, but again, it’s a balancing act, and Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens, and when Israel has allowed people into and out of Palestine…night clubs have had a tendency to explode and catch on fire. Doesn’t mean all, or even most Palestinians are terrorists, but it is a security concern.

And seriously? Genocide? Do you REALLY think Israel is interested in conducting a genocide against the Muslim people? There are a quarter million muslims living IN JERUSALEM. The Temple Mount, the most sacred place in all of Judaism, has a fucking MOSQUE on top of it. Don’t act like Israel is promoting genocide. If Israel wanted to commit a genocide on the Palestinian people they’d ALL be dead. Every. Single. One. There’s no genocide. No mass plan to exterminate them. Israel has taken a hard line against Palestine, to be sure, and has been more aggressive at times than perhaps has been warranted, but again, when a group elects an organization that has made it its mission to destroy Israel, and launches missiles and mortars across the border, it’s hard not to. Especially when the rhetoric of “we will wipe them from the earth” starts to sound a little familiar. Keep in mind, the guiding mantra of Israel is, simply, "never again". Never again will they allow the holocaust to occur. Never again will they allow their existence to be threatened. It's one hell of a hard lined stance to take, but again, when you have the history they've had, in the area they're in, perhaps it's an understandable one.

Yes, they’ve been aggressive, but in response to aggression. Of course, their own aggression prompts aggression in return, and maybe Hamas wouldn’t have gotten into power if not for anger against Israel by otherwise peaceful Palestinians who saw their house bulldozed. But maybe their house wouldn’t have been bulldozed if Hamas didn’t launch missiles into Israel, making the idea of that buffer zone all the more attractive.

So grow the fuck up and stop acting like one party is the villain here. Both groups have traditional claims to the land. Both groups have reason to be angry at the other. Neither group trusts one another. And neither one is going to stand down until the other does. No good guys, no bad guys, just a bad cycle of violence that will continue until BOTH sides stand down, and start treating each other like human beings.

So grow the fuck up and knock off the hysterical hyperbole, all of you. It makes you look stupid.

Now, much of this land was taken as spoils of war, namely, the Six Day War. Which was an aggressive act AGAINST Israel, which Israel won, and claimed land in conquest. .So yes, on one hand, Israel legitimately claimed land in a response to being attacked in an act of war......

...which is irrelevant. Can't get territory by war legitamately. You can look it up. Not because of a few hills with nobody on them, but because of what happens to the inhabitants. It was decided after WWII that it would be a no-no from then on in.


their withdrawl efforts have been punctuated by efforts of de facto expansion. But again, on the other hand, if you withdraw, and get bombed, why withdraw? ......

They only withdrew from Gaza. Not the same thing as a full withdrawal by agreement.

...which is irrelevant. Can't get territory by war legitamately. You can look it up. Not because of a few hills with nobody on them, but because of what happens to the inhabitants. It was decided after WWII that it would be a no-no from then on in.

International law and norms specifically bars wars for conquest. The Six Day War, from the perspective of Israel, was not a war for conquest, it was an act of war against them.

Unless you can find the specific provision you're referring to.

Neither the Israeli leaders nor Hamas have anything to gain by ending this war, so it's not going to happen. The Israelis get sympathy and money for getting attacked, and Hamas get funded by dickhead Saudis. Abbas' government in the West Bank would be better off without this war, but they're the only involved people in the region for whom this is the case.

Then that is indeed a pity.

International law and norms specifically bars wars for conquest. The Six Day War, from the perspective of Israel, was not a war for conquest, it was an act of war against them.

Unless you can find the specific provision you're referring to.

It's not "wars for conquest" - it's "wars for the acquisition of territory"

It is irrelevant if Israel perceives the Six Day War to be legal or illegal. It is also irrelevant if Syria, Jordan or Egypt perceive the war to be legal or illegal.
The Security Council will decide what is and is not legal.

Resolution 242 (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/9c1564a379bc943d0525654f005d71cc!OpenDocument&Highlight=2,S%2F10070) The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
My emphasis.

Article 1 (i) (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

Any territory seized during the Six Day War and that still have Israeli armed forces on it, are illegal. Now, this latter part gets into semantics over the use of the word "the" but that's not party to your question.

The Security Council will decide what is and is not legal.

Of course, this gets into the very heady argument of what constitutes international law, and whether a voluntary organization that in no way abrogates sovereignty can every do something that is considered creating law. You'll find that there's great debate as to whether the UN security council has any authority what so ever to create law.

Secondly, my post in no way really discussed the legal implications of such, so saying it's illegal really in no way counters anything I said.

Of course, this gets into the very heady argument of what constitutes international law,
In general yes. Specifically related to "international peace and security" (under which wars fall into), it is specifically the realm of the Security Council.

and whether a voluntary organization that in no way abrogates sovereignty can every do something that is considered creating law. You'll find that there's great debate as to whether the UN security council has any authority what so ever to create law.
Of course there's debate. I'm not saying there's not. However no one has successfully challenged the legitimacy of the UNSC in the realm of international law and maintaining peace and security. We go with what is in existence, not with what suits some states at this moment in time.

Secondly, my post in no way really discussed the legal implications of such, so saying it's illegal really in no way counters anything I said.
I didn't want to get into a legal debate about illegal wars or resolutions, simply The Six Day War, from the perspective of Israel, was not a war for conquest, it was an act of war against them is an irrelevant statement in international law.

I don't perceive the red light I'm about to break as being really wrong, but my perception doesn't change the law.

Of course, this gets into the very heady argument of what constitutes international law, and whether a voluntary organization that in no way abrogates sovereignty can every do something that is considered creating law. You'll find that there's great debate as to whether the UN security council has any authority what so ever to create law.

Secondly, my post in no way really discussed the legal implications of such, so saying it's illegal really in no way counters anything I said.
IMHO - laws can only be respected if they are created by organizations capable of enforcing them - which the UN is not.

Sharia law is not observed in the USA because they do not have the power to enforce it there - but it certainly is in Iran - because they have much more power there...

A law is only valid if the issuing party has the influence, will and authority to enforce it. Hence the fallacy of 'international' law. There is no organization with authority above all nations sovereignty - and therefore no ability to enforce laws... so therefore international 'law' is a fallacy. and they lived happily ever after.. (reference to an earlier post)

The closest thing to 'international law' would be the execution of treaties between nations and the resolution of technical disputes (most often trade related). These are more comparable to arbitration between equal parties than they are to legal proceedings. 'Laws' of warfare would fall under the category of treaties (Geneva Convention, for one) yet these too are only negotiated treaties - not enforced by a superior governing authority, and only relevant to the participants of the treaty.

So please - stop looking the fool and crying on about 'laws' issued by impotent organizations and enforced only by consent.

I'm sad about the violence, but Israel had no other choice. Who wouldn't be mad if there were rockets landing DAILY on your country? :(

The Palestinians have every right to retaliate.

The Palestinians have every right to retaliate.

Everyone has a right of retaliation - isn't the Israeli offensive itself a retaliation? Exactly when do you suppose 'retaliation' is over?

This is why the war must be allowed to end naturally - whith the complete defeat of one side. Retaliation is over when one side no longer has the means or will to do so.

This conflict has been unnaturally prolonged long past it's natural lifetime by meddling interests.

I didn't want to get into a legal debate about illegal wars or resolutions, simply is an irrelevant statement in international law.

I don't perceive the red light I'm about to break as being really wrong, but my perception doesn't change the law.

Ah. So you can't argue with any of the other points, you just wanted to get into a pointless pissing match about international law?

*snip*

So please - stop looking the fool and crying on about 'laws' issued by impotent organizations and enforced only by consent.

Who are you talking to? Psychotic Mongooses was the one blathering on about international law...Neo Art was pointing out the flaws and irrelevancy of the argument.

*snip* A JEW making a balanced comment on the situation? What's next, bacon for Channukah?

It has always amazed me how little people are able (or willing) to approach the very fucked up, and complex situation in the Middle East with even a smidgeon of intellectual honesty. Instead it's very much a 'pick a side' conversation most of the time. All manner of things are justified and all many of things reviled depending on 'your team'.

And yet I think deep down, most people are actually capable of recognising that the situation simply isn't that simple. Perhaps that approach is just less sexy.

So I appreciate the effort you put in to contextualise some of the conflict, and to try to see both sides of the story. No doubt your post will be mostly ignored in favour of sloganeering...that sort of mentality is, after all, what allows these kinds of conflicts to go on for so long.

It is a case of picking a side. And i pick Palestine. Palestine doesn't bully other nations in the middle east. Syria has offered to act as an intermediary between the west and the m.e, but Israel really doesn't want that to happen. Why is that i wonder?

It is a case of picking a side. And i pick Palestine. Palestine doesn't bully other nations in the middle east. Syria has offered to act as an intermediary between the west and the m.e, but Israel really doesn't want that to happen. Why is that i wonder?

Because Syria is on the record as being anti-Israel, and effectively runs (or at least wedges itself well into the running of) Lebanon?

It's nigh on impossible to mediate when picking a side.

This is why the war must be allowed to end naturally - whith the complete defeat of one side. Retaliation is over when one side no longer has the means or will to do so.

Or when no one is capable of winning. Arm the Palestinians with strategic class nuclear weapons equal to Israel's stockpile, and simply wait for the end result. Either everyone wins, or everyone dies.

It is a case of picking a side. And i pick Palestine. Palestine doesn't bully other nations in the middle east. Syria has offered to act as an intermediary between the west and the m.e, but Israel really doesn't want that to happen. Why is that i wonder?

Probably because Israel doesn't trust Syria to be impartial... Wonder why that would be?


Six Day War and Aftermath

The new government generally aligned itself with the hawkish Nasser in intra-Arab conflicts over how hard of a line to take against Israel. When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Eilat-bound ships, the Baath government supported the Egyptian leader, amassed troops in the strategic Golan Heights to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were caused and started by Israel. The New York Times reported in 1997 that “Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland.” After Israel launched a preemptive strike on Egypt to begin the June 1967 war, Syria joined the battle against Israel as well. In the final days of the war, after having captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, as well as the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from Jordan, Israel turned its attention to Syria, capturing the entire Golan Heights in under 48 hours.

Conflict developed between an extremist military wing and a more moderate civilian wing of the Baath Party. The 1970 retreat of Syrian forces sent to aid the PLO during the "Black September" hostilities with Jordan reflected this political disagreement within the ruling Baath leadership. By 13 November 1970, Minister of Defense Hafez al-Assad was solidly established as the strongman of the government, when he effected a bloodless military coup ("The Corrective Movement").

Oh, wait... Maybe that's why...

I'm sad about the violence, but Israel had no other choice. Who wouldn't be mad if there were rockets landing DAILY on your country?

Yes, and this gives a civilized nation to exact revenge primarily targeted against average civilians how?

Y'know, with the bombs'n shit like the blockade and wall they're BREEDING terrorism not fighting it.


Aw, f*ck...Promises given by Imaginary Friend(s) FTW. :(

edit:
Or when no one is capable of winning. Arm the Palestinians with strategic class nuclear weapons equal to Israel's stockpile, and simply wait for the end result. Either everyone wins, or everyone else wins.
Fixed.

Warning: the following should be considered sheer speculation.

If I were Israel and I were planning to act against Iran's nuclear program, the first steps I would take would be to devastate Iran's stooges to my south and north, namely Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH. That way, when I finally do whack Iran, the Iranians won't be able to use their stooges to retaliate against me.

If this sheer speculation is correct, look for Hez-BLAAH to take the next hit.

In fact, Hez-BLAAH may be stupid enough to give Israel an excuse to hit them, by attacking while Israel is busy pulverizing Ham-ass.

Fixed.

No, not likely. Israel cannot be trusted to limit it's retaliatory strikes to just the aggressor, especially given their threats of a a Samson option, likewise Hamas. Regional strikes against other nations are very likely on either side. Providing the Palestinians nuclear weapons makes peace everybody's business rather than just empty words.

Everyone wins, or everyone dies. No better incentive.

No, not likely. Israel cannot be trusted to limit it's retaliatory strikes to just the aggressor, especially given their threats of a a Samson option, likewise Hamas. Regional strikes against other nations are very likely on either side. Providing the Palestinians nuclear weapons makes peace everybody's business rather than just empty words.

Everyone wins, or everyone dies. No better incentive.
Well, middle east is a garbage bin anyways so not a great loss.

As long as Iran or Pakistan won't launch missiles to Europe my statement is accurate.

Warning: the following should be considered sheer speculation.

If I were Israel and I were planning to act against Iran's nuclear program, the first steps I would take would be to devastate Iran's stooges to my south and north, namely Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH. That way, when I finally do whack Iran, the Iranians won't be able to use their stooges to retaliate against me.

If this sheer speculation is correct, look for Hez-BLAAH to take the next hit.

In fact, Hez-BLAAH may be stupid enough to give Israel an excuse to hit them, by attacking while Israel is busy pulverizing Ham-ass.

And in retaliation Iran pumps even more assistance to the Iraqi insurgency, and it might even lend the Taliban a hand just to be a total bitch to Israel's chief enabler, the United States.

Oh and did you forget about the last time Israel went marching in to Lebanon to try and take out Hezb'allah, George S. Schwartzkopf?

It has always amazed me how little people are able (or willing) to approach the very fucked up, and complex situation in the Middle East with even a smidgeon of intellectual honesty. Instead it's very much a 'pick a side' conversation most of the time. All manner of things are justified and all many of things reviled depending on 'your team'.

When it comes to the Middle East, my basic approach is that the political and religious power over there is in the capable hands of complete and utter bastards, no exceptions. It works amazingly well.

When it comes to the Middle East, my basic approach is that the political and religious power over there is in the capable hands of complete and utter bastards, no exceptions. It works amazingly well.

It's the Pond Scum Theory. The most disgusting collection of organic matter always rises to the top, leaving everyone else at the bottom, in the dark. Of course most people choose to ignore than and conveniently assume either that all Israelis are Kahanist Fuckheads like settlers in the West Bank, or that all Palestinians are telepathically linked to Teh Ebil Mozlem Caliphate Hivemind.

Warning: the following should be considered sheer speculation.

If I were Israel and I were planning to act against Iran's nuclear program, the first steps I would take would be to devastate Iran's stooges to my south and north, namely Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH. That way, when I finally do whack Iran, the Iranians won't be able to use their stooges to retaliate against me.

If this sheer speculation is correct, look for Hez-BLAAH to take the next hit.

In fact, Hez-BLAAH may be stupid enough to give Israel an excuse to hit them, by attacking while Israel is busy pulverizing Ham-ass.

Well first off, why do you insist on adding childish and demeaning phrases at the end of otherwise normal words? Do you think it makes you more intelligent? Do you feel like your balls get bigger and your dick larger? What purpose does this demeaning of your supposed opposition accomplish? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? I mean honestly, we can talk forever about Israel-Palestine and not got anywhere, but if I could get a little bit of insight on the psychology of people that speak in such a manner (and similarly, people that intentionally come up with the most fucked up ways to say Ahmadinejads name, etc.) I would consider it a day in which I actually learned something from NSG. So please respond.

As to the actual argumentation, what purpose does Hezbollah achieve by attacking Israel at the moment? There's really no geopolitical gain, and if you think the game Hezbollah is playing is something other than geopolitical, I'd say you're a fool. Attacking Israel only risks another conflict in which they use up more resources and lose fighters. And furthermore, considering the elections and what not, they probably wouldn't act now anyways (seeing as how things tend to get a bit frantic when jobs are at stake).

Furthermore, considering Iran has never made a specific nuclear threat against Israel (and the only threats at all has been some vague rants from Ahmadinejad), it would look rather bad on Israel to carry out a random strike on Iran. Whether or not Iran actually intends to use Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies would be irrelevent because 1) I highly doubt Iran hasn't considered the possibility of an aerial strike and has likely made safeguards for their programs and 2) an assault by land would fail.

Well first off, why do you insist on adding childish and demeaning phrases at the end of otherwise normal words? Do you think it makes you more intelligent? Do you feel like your balls get bigger and your dick larger? What purpose does this demeaning of your supposed opposition accomplish? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? I mean honestly, we can talk forever about Israel-Palestine and not got anywhere, but if I could get a little bit of insight on the psychology of people that speak in such a manner (and similarly, people that intentionally come up with the most fucked up ways to say Ahmadinejads name, etc.) I would consider it a day in which I actually learned something from NSG. So please respond.

As to the actual argumentation, what purpose does Hezbollah achieve by attacking Israel at the moment? There's really no geopolitical gain, and if you think the game Hezbollah is playing is something other than geopolitical, I'd say you're a fool. Attacking Israel only risks another conflict in which they use up more resources and lose fighters. And furthermore, considering the elections and what not, they probably wouldn't act now anyways (seeing as how things tend to get a bit frantic when jobs are at stake).

Furthermore, considering Iran has never made a specific nuclear threat against Israel (and the only threats at all has been some vague rants from Ahmadinejad), it would look rather bad on Israel to carry out a random strike on Iran. Whether or not Iran actually intends to use Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies would be irrelevent because 1) I highly doubt Iran hasn't considered the possibility of an aerial strike and has likely made safeguards for their programs and 2) an assault by land would fail.

Look who you're responding to. Not really a secret that he's part of the Masturbates to Dead Muslims Club.

Look who you're responding to. Not really a secret that he's part of the Masturbates to Dead Muslims Club.

I'd say that's at least a little bit unfair.

However, if it was true, then theoretically wouldn't he be trying to make the evil terrorists seem stronger than they are in reality (rather than the reverse) to make him feel his side is even stronger?

Now, here’s the thing, let’s drop the hyperboli, drop the hysterics, and talk about this rationally. First, let’s accept some basic facts as a premise. There’s been no country known as Palestine. The land has changed hands numerous times over the course of history, and numerous nations, or successor nations, could have claim to it. Mainly Italy, Vatican City, Britain, Turkey and Syria all have historical connections to this land, dating back to pre Ottoman days. The area was refered to as “Palestine”, but that wasn’t a nation state, it was a geographical area, doesn’t make it a country, any more than “upstate New York” or “the Bay area” is a country

Now if we’re not talking countries, but rather cultural groups, then yes, Islamic Arabs do have a cultural connection to that land, but so do Christian and jews. In fact, jews have a connection to that land before there was such a thing as a muslim or an arab. Now, true jews largely lost that land some time ago, but not completely. Moreover, if we’re going to use the argument to suggest that this land is “Palestinian” and the Israeli jews forced them off it, and the fact that they were forced off it does not give up ownership, then the argument should equally apply to ancient jews, who were forced off it by…Christians and Muslims. So if we’re going to use the argument that being forced off your land doesn’t cede your ownership of it, and it’s a fairly good argument, then let’s be intellectually honest and recognize that the argument applies to jews just as well.

Now, much of this land was taken as spoils of war, namely, the Six Day War. Which was an aggressive act AGAINST Israel, which Israel won, and claimed land in conquest. Now again, there’s mixed minds on this, on one hand, Israel was attacked, and won. The fact that they conquered land…well, you attacked someone and lost, you don’t get to cry that you lost land in a war YOU waged. On the other hand, a lot of the people who LIVED on that land just wanted to do so peacefully, had no stake in the outcome of that war.

So yes, on one hand, Israel legitimately claimed land in a response to being attacked in an act of war. On the other hand, in so doing, they displaced people who were LIVING THERE. I understand why that would cause hostility against the country, when your land gets taken. It’s hard to remain objective and tell yourself “well, our leaders waged war and lost, so we should blame THEM for this”, the typical response is to blame the people controlling the tanks, not the machinations of leaders that angered the tank wielders. There is some legitimate cause for hostility there.

And Israel hasn’t been exactly the best neighbor, their withdrawl efforts have been punctuated by efforts of de facto expansion. But again, on the other hand, if you withdraw, and get bombed, why withdraw? Why give in if it won’t help you? Sure, “the right thing to do” would be to give all the land back and withdraw totally, but it’s hard to be benevolent when you’re surrounded by people who have stated it is their mission in life to see you destroyed. Having a bit of a buffer zone between them and you can seem awfully appealing. Doesn’t give much comfort however to the people that were LIVING in that buffer zone. It’s a tough balancing act, trying to be helpful and a good neighbor, while at the same time living next to people who have made it quite clear that, if given half a chance, they’d kill every single one of you. Again, Israel’s complex geopolitical situation doesn’t help assuage the anger of someone whose house just got bulldozed.

But please, let’s stop the hysterics, let’s stop the nonsense. Let’s stop talking about genocide. It’s insulting. There’s no genocide. There’s no attempt by Israel to wipe any people off the earth. Israel has had peaceful coexistence with Egypt and Jordan, once those countries stated that they’d halt hostilities against Israel, and recognize its right to exist. And since then, they get along alright. Not great, but no bombings either. Let’s also stop acting like Israel is intent on wiping out the Palestinian people. Sure, there are things that Israel could do to make the lives of Palestinians better. Allowing medical convoys would be a nice start. But it’s not like Israel put an embargo on Palestine, they’re just not letting them use their sovereign land. Which is Israel’s right. Again, maybe not the nicest thing to do, but let’s keep in mind that when Israel has allowed trucks through their land, the tendency for some Palestinians has been to put bombs in them. There are other routs to Palestine. Egypt for one. Egyptians haven’t been too terribly keen on allowing convoys in and out of Palestine EITHER. For pretty much the same reason. Sure, Israel could be more open, it could be more benevolent. It could allow more access to and from Palestine through their borders, but again, it’s a balancing act, and Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens, and when Israel has allowed people into and out of Palestine…night clubs have had a tendency to explode and catch on fire. Doesn’t mean all, or even most Palestinians are terrorists, but it is a security concern.

And seriously? Genocide? Do you REALLY think Israel is interested in conducting a genocide against the Muslim people? There are a quarter million muslims living IN JERUSALEM. The Temple Mount, the most sacred place in all of Judaism, has a fucking MOSQUE on top of it. Don’t act like Israel is promoting genocide. If Israel wanted to commit a genocide on the Palestinian people they’d ALL be dead. Every. Single. One. There’s no genocide. No mass plan to exterminate them. Israel has taken a hard line against Palestine, to be sure, and has been more aggressive at times than perhaps has been warranted, but again, when a group elects an organization that has made it its mission to destroy Israel, and launches missiles and mortars across the border, it’s hard not to. Especially when the rhetoric of “we will wipe them from the earth” starts to sound a little familiar. Keep in mind, the guiding mantra of Israel is, simply, "never again". Never again will they allow the holocaust to occur. Never again will they allow their existence to be threatened. It's one hell of a hard lined stance to take, but again, when you have the history they've had, in the area they're in, perhaps it's an understandable one.

Yes, they’ve been aggressive, but in response to aggression. Of course, their own aggression prompts aggression in return, and maybe Hamas wouldn’t have gotten into power if not for anger against Israel by otherwise peaceful Palestinians who saw their house bulldozed. But maybe their house wouldn’t have been bulldozed if Hamas didn’t launch missiles into Israel, making the idea of that buffer zone all the more attractive.

So grow the fuck up and stop acting like one party is the villain here. Both groups have traditional claims to the land. Both groups have reason to be angry at the other. Neither group trusts one another. And neither one is going to stand down until the other does. No good guys, no bad guys, just a bad cycle of violence that will continue until BOTH sides stand down, and start treating each other like human beings.

So grow the fuck up and knock off the hysterical hyperbole, all of you. It makes you look stupid.

So let's try this view of the situation...

What is occurring is a circle of violence and oppression. What one thinks is the cause is irrelevant (which is what most Israel-Palestine debates devolve into), because it's just one point on a circle. Israel may be at fault for something, and they certainly have before, and the same goes for the Palestinians. One side acts, the other reacts, and so on. Until something breaks the cycle, it will continue. Both sides have a certain pride in themselves. Both sides feel their actions are just and feel that in some sense, "God is on their side".

Basically, either one side will need to make a revolutionary gesture (in terms of the Israel-Palestine relationship), or one side will need to be completely destroyed. Now, I'm sure the majority of people prefer the first option, but then it becomes a question of who will act first. And this is where the problem lies, because both sides feel they have a justification for continuing the violence.

I guess I don't really have a solution, other than that people stop being assholes to each other, but I think that might be the only thing that could end what will otherwise be a perpetual conflict/genocide of one side.

A time-line could be helpful but someone needs to draw the line on the time-line (otherwise we'd be arguing over whether it was fair that Sampson pulled the roof down on the heads of the Philistines in what can only be described as an act of suicide terrorism.) Yes I am joking guys!
Let's look at the very recent past.
You have the creation of the Wall - Ariel Sharon's grab of Palestinian extra land.
You have the more moderate and more extreme Al Fatah and Hamas violently breaking with each other over a host of things - one of wehich is coexistence with Israel. Hamas gets gaza but refuses to acknowledge the state of Israel - a vital Israeli condition for peace.
Israel allows the settlers to continue to occupy Palestion land, occasionally intervening when the settlers deliberately disobey the Israeli government. Intermittent shelling by Hamas and Islamic Jihad of Israeli border towns with quassam rockets.
Tight Israeli blockade of Gaza leading to a humanitarian crisis.
In November/December 2008, settlers step up their attacks on Palestinians following Israeli government eviction of settlers from West Bank areas. Some international observors describe the attacks on Palestinians as a pogrom. IDF break up some of the settler insired-riots arresting some settlers but many observors argue that the response appeared half-hearted given the seriousness of the attacks on Palestinians.
December 2008. Hamas announces the expiration of a six-month truce. A quassam rocket kills an Israeli in Sderot.
Israel retaliates with intense ariel bombardment that kills at least 300 Palestinians, blows up a Po0lice compound and an oil tanker "smuggling" fuel to Gaza.

Now I know I've left out many salient points and feel free to add and correct.
What could the Israelis have done differently to avoid this?
What could the Palestinians have done differently?
How can the rest of the world help to defuse this situation?

Ah. So you can't argue with any of the other points,
What other points?

you just wanted to get into a pointless pissing match about international law?

1) Instead of whining on about "what it should be" or "why isn't it like this way" like a crying child, I clarified out what the situation is currently.

2) I was correcting Neo Art as it matters not an ounce what one side 'perceives' the law to be.

3) Call international law pointless - fine. I would be one of the first to agree with you everything fricking time. Now that's out of the way, back in reality we still have in practice ..... international law. No one likes it, but you can't escape it.

But the claims of ownership are derived from religion, especially on the Jewish side with their promised-land-thing and all.
It's as much about it being the best land, that Britain, as an allied power, owned essentially as a colony, and could give away, as "it's our homeland".

It'll be interesting to see how effective the wall is at preventing suicide bombing attempts: if numerous bombers get through it'll be that much harder to justify; if none do then it'll be near impossible to get it taken down in the forseeable future.

I think the effectiveness of the wall is zero. Suicide bombers can enter via sea, or disguised in many ways. Also, you don't need to carry the bomb with you across the wall, you can simply build it on the israeli side of the bomb with spare parts and things anyone can buy in a hardware store.

A time-line could be helpful
Rightio. As always, Yootopia provides.

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/2941/levhistem3.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/levhistem3.png/1/w548.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img381/levhistem3.png/1/)

I think the effectiveness of the wall is zero. Suicide bombers can enter via sea, or disguised in many ways. Also, you don't need to carry the bomb with you across the wall, you can simply build it on the israeli side of the bomb with spare parts and things anyone can buy in a hardware store.

Israel sells C4 at hardware stores?

Israel sells C4 at hardware stores?

For totally unrelated reasons, I think I'll start planning a trip to Israel :wink:

Oh and did you forget about the last time Israel went marching in to Lebanon to try and take out Hezb'allah, George S. Schwartzkopf?

Proof that you shouldn't waste money on those incredibly expensive Israeli weapons when an AK costs a mere fraction of an Uzi. :D

Israel sells C4 at hardware stores?

I imagine he's talking about fertiliser and ammonium nitrate.

"Palestinians say Israeli F-16 bombers have launched a series of air strikes against key targets in the Gaza Strip, killing and injuring dozens of people.

Missiles destroyed security compounds run by the militant group Hamas in the centre of Gaza City, killing at least 120 people, Hamas officials said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7800985.stm

Seeing as the whole 'kill loads and they'll lie down' thing hasn't worked for the 50 years they've been doing it, you'd think they'd try a different tack. No prizes for guessing what they'll do in response.

So, a week where the Palestinians fire 200 rockets into Israel should be just something that the Israelis should tolerate, like rain or wind?

What do you believe the "appropriate" response to continuous, random, non-precision rocket fire at civilian areas should be? Playing mahjongg and taking tea?

Ha'aretz (a left-wing Israeli paper) has some interesting points to make on this conflict:

Trying to 'teach Hamas a lesson' is fundamentally wrong

By Tom Segev



Channel 1 television broadcast an interesting mix on Saturday morning: Its correspondents reported from Sderot and Ashkelon, but the pictures on the screen were from the Gaza Strip. Thus the broadcast, albeit unintentionally, sent the right message: A child in Sderot is the same as a child in Gaza, and anyone who harms either is evil.



But the assault on Gaza does not first and foremost demand moral condemnation - it demands a few historical reminders. Both the justification given for it and the chosen targets are a replay of the same basic assumptions that have proven wrong time after time. Yet Israel still pulls them out of its hat again and again, in one war after another.



Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey.

The bombing of Gaza is also supposed to "liquidate the Hamas regime," in line with another assumption that has accompanied the Zionist movement since its inception: that it is possible to impose a "moderate" leadership on the Palestinians, one that will abandon their national aspirations.



As a corollary, Israel has also always believed that causing suffering to Palestinian civilians would make them rebel against their national leaders. This assumption has proven wrong over and over.



All of Israel's wars have been based on yet another assumption that has been with us from the start: that we are only defending ourselves. "Half a million Israelis are under fire," screamed the banner headline of Sunday's Yedioth Ahronoth - just as if the Gaza Strip had not been subjected to a lengthy siege that destroyed an entire generation's chances of living lives worth living.



It is admittedly impossible to live with daily missile fire, even if virtually no place in the world today enjoys a situation of zero terror. But Hamas is not a terrorist organization holding Gaza residents hostage: It is a religious nationalist movement, and a majority of Gaza residents believe in its path. One can certainly attack it, and with Knesset elections in the offing, this attack might even produce some kind of cease-fire. But there is another historical truth worth recalling in this context: Since the dawn of the Zionist presence in the Land of Israel, no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians.



Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas, and Israel has something to offer the organization. Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip.



At the same time, it is worth dusting off the old plans prepared after the Six-Day War, under which thousands of families were to be relocated from Gaza to the West Bank. Those plans were never implemented because the West Bank was slated to be used for Jewish settlement. And that was the most damaging working assumption of all.

So, a week where the Palestinians fire 200 rockets into Israel should be just something that the Israelis should tolerate, like rain or wind?

What do you believe the "appropriate" response to continuous, random, non-precision rocket fire at civilian areas should be? Playing mahjongg and taking tea?

Considering you called out for the annihilation of Pakistan as an "appropirate response" to the Mumbai attack, this is a fucking laugh Kimchi.

There is a technical solution to the Pakistan problem. The use of specifically salted airburst thermonuclear weapons to depopulate the nation of Pakistan.

Say, something with a half-life under 30 days that is bioavailable, and readily taken in by the body.

In a few months, you could march in and bury the corpses. Problem solved.

Considering you called out for the annihilation of Pakistan as an "appropirate response" to the Mumbai attack, this is a fucking laugh Kimchi.

It is well within the technical capability of Israel to have destroyed Gaza and annihilated the population there long ago.

That they have not done so is a show of remarkable restraint.

Even this current attack is remarkable restraint.

If I had been in charge of Israel, the Palestinians would have been forcibly relocated to Lebanon permanently long ago. Those who resisted with armed force would have been annihilated.

Considering you called out for the annihilation of Pakistan as an "appropirate response" to the Mumbai attack, this is a fucking laugh Kimchi.

Your quote says "appropriate response". I said technical solution. There's a difference that the ignorant cannot see.

It is well within the technical capability of Israel to have destroyed Gaza and annihilated the population there long ago.

That they have not done so is a show of remarkable restraint.

Even this current attack is remarkable restraint.

If I had been in charge of Israel, the Palestinians would have been forcibly relocated to Lebanon permanently long ago. Those who resisted with armed force would have been annihilated.

Bombing school and mosques is fine with you then?

Bombing school and mosques is fine with you then?

If someone fires from them, yes.

If someone fires from them, yes.

Even if there are little children inside them at the time?

Even if there are little children inside them at the time?

This is your first time with DK isn't it?

Even if there are little children inside them at the time?

Technically, using children as shields is a violation of the Geneva Convention, and is strictly on the person using the children as shields.

If you don't like the Conventions, don't ask me to uphold them.

Firing from a civilian area is a war crime. Using a hospital, religious structure, or a roomful of children as a shield against retaliation is a war crime.

Shooting at the building and blowing up the children who are being used as a human shield is not a war crime.

Of course nobody asks the obvious question of why Zionists accepted the British giving them back "their" land when God was supposed to be the one doing it. This is the modern version of what was going on between Native Americans and European settlers here in North America, only with better killing technology. I thought Israel was supposed to be about no more ethnic cleansing.

The sad part is that people have been seriously deluded about that area of the world for so long now. Even back in the 1800s Mark Twain was trying to tell the world that no one lived in Palestine. One or more of his peers corrected him on that matter but I wonder how much good it did. And now a good chunk of my country's foreign policy is based in propping up a theocracy that is based in land theft and bloodshed. Just read the Old Testament if you don't believe me. Tell me something. If China came over here and took over the United States and, when asked, claimed that God told them they were entitled to the land, what would you do?

Why does Israel get a free pass? I am loathe to say I want the country to disappear, because there are Jews who lived there before the Zionists and there are Jews there now who were born there and think of it as home for that reason. I would not see them hurt or sent away. But I frickin' hate Zionists. Not because they're Jewish, not for any other reason but that they're frickin' genocidal land thieves. And Britain owes a karmic debt as well for aiding and abetting them. And so do we (the U.S.).

God, the way people bend over backwards to justify this crap. The way they twist things around to suit their agenda. It's ridiculous. Even the tripe about avoiding another Holocaust does not fly with me. Know how we could have prevented the last Holocaust? Letting Jews emigrate to the U.S. to be safe from the Nazis, and putting Hitler down as soon as he invaded Poland. Duh. It didn't take stealing people's homes from them and leaving them homeless and stateless. It just took eliminating racist policies bent on wiping them out and, gee, TREATING THEM LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. The way they refuse to do for Palestinians now.

This isn't going to stop until we stop paying for it, I fear. And it is a stain on Judaism's modern reputation for being an intellectual, peaceful faith when we have to watch self-defined Jews turn into foaming-mouthed fanatics hellbent on slaughter, conquest, and theocracy at any cost.

And if I had to deal with half the indignities the Palestinian people suffer, including having their entire existence dismissed as irrelevant, I'd be blowing myself up in shopping malls too. Only a pampered pansy-baby who's never had to worry about his home being taken from him by force would think otherwise. Which likely explains America's attitude about this whole sorry affair. That, and wicked fantasies of the end of the world being brought about that much sooner so we can leave this world forever. Puke.

Shooting at the building and blowing up the children who are being used as a human shield is not a war crime.

It really is. The school in question wasn't being fired from though, neither was the mosque.

This is your first time with DK isn't it?

No, I've been here since March.

I should add that at least some of the original Zionist thinkers were atheists--in other words they were Jews in ethnicity only. This wasn't about religion, it was about land lust, and the worst part is that so many Jews today are the descendants of converts. They're all, "It's our land!" No, dudes, "your land" is likely in the Slavic nations. WTF? The Palestinians are more "semitic" than at least half the "Jews" that have moved into their territory. So this isn't even about a historical or an ethnic claim. And conservative Christians in the U.S. and elsewhere are playing the Zionists for suckers. Know why they support you? They want the whole world destroyed. And as they don't believe you will get into heaven because you didn't believe in their Jesus, that means you go bye-bye too. Ain't that wonderful to know? The return of the land of Israel to the Jews is supposed to be one of the harbingers of the apocalypse. That is the level of their esteem for you. They're leading you to the slaughterhouse.

It really is. The school in question wasn't being fired from though, neither was the mosque.

No, it isn't if the building is being fired from.

It is if the building wasn't being fired from.

You would also have to prove that the children were specifically targeted.

I don't see you condemning the 200 rockets that were fired by the Palestinians over the past week - not a single post from you saying that was even a bad thing... :eek:

No, it isn't if the building is being fired from.

It is if the building wasn't being fired from.

You would also have to prove that the children were specifically targeted.

I don't see you condemning the 200 rockets that were fired by the Palestinians over the past week - not a single post from you saying that was even a bad thing... :eek:

It was. It was a very bad thing, but so far they haven't managed to kill hundreds of people. I think it was 2 at last count, and Hamas brings it upon themselves, but that doesn't give Israel the excuse to just blast everything to pieces.

Human shield is a military and political term describing the presence of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers.

This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is illegal by any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Looks like Human Rights Watch agrees with me:

(Jerusalem, November 22, 2006) – Palestinian armed groups must not endanger Palestinian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Human Rights Watch said today.

Calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack is at worst human shielding, at best failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. Both are violations of international humanitarian law.

Human shield is a military and political term describing the presence of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers.

This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is illegal by any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Looks like Human Rights Watch agrees with me:

Your point being?

Your point being?

Notice how everyone whines about how useless International Law is, and then cites it to back up their case when it suits them.

Your point being?

It's the Palestinians' fault for leaving their children in a war zone.

Maybe they should have put their women and children at the far end of Gaza, away from their rocket firing positions, away from their Hamas buildings, and away from their rocket factories and arms caches.

Tell the Israelis, "all our women and children are in this area, and all of our men and weapons will not be in there". And actually keep that promise.

Then it would be safer for their women and children. It does mean, however, that the IDF could level every other building, and the Palestinian men who were fighting would essentially cease to exist as a viable force of any kind.

But it would all be legal. If you're going to be a martyr, it's best to be legal and aboveboard. It's something that the Palestinians can't even grasp.

It's the Palestinians' fault for leaving their children in a war zone.

In that case it's the Israelis' fault for living in said war zone as well. You can't apply a rule to one side in this and not to the other.

In that case it's the Israelis' fault for living in said war zone as well. You can't apply a rule to one side in this and not to the other.

Then stop applying it. I'm not the one who brought up the kids being blown up.

Then stop applying it. I'm not the one who brought up the kids being blown up.

I asked if that was OK with you. That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

I asked if that was OK with you. That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

It's only ok with me if they're being used as human shields.

The Palestinians have an obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to keep their "protected persons" as far from any possible or potential military target as possible.

The Hamas leaders appear to have done this for themselves - they're hiding in places far removed from their training buildings, rocket firing sites, headquarters, etc - but I guess that's part of their plan.

The Hamas leaders appear to have done this for themselves - they're hiding in places far removed from their training buildings, rocket firing sites, headquarters, etc - but I guess that's part of their plan.

Well, actually, they were in a security compound. That was one of the places that got bombed. As well as a school. And a mosque. And some houses. That didn't have Hamas soldiers inside them.

The Palestinians have an obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to keep their "protected persons" as far from any possible or potential military target as possible.
I don't believe Palestine is a signatory to the Geneva Conventin.

I don't believe Palestine is a signatory to the Geneva Conventin.

In today's world, that's not a valid excuse.

In today's world, that's not a valid excuse.
No, it's not.

But one cannot maintain that Hammas have an obligation due to a piece of legislation they have not signed.

Well first off, why do you insist on adding childish and demeaning phrases at the end of otherwise normal words? Do you think it makes you more intelligent? Do you feel like your balls get bigger and your dick larger? What purpose does this demeaning of your supposed opposition accomplish? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? I mean honestly, we can talk forever about Israel-Palestine and not got anywhere, but if I could get a little bit of insight on the psychology of people that speak in such a manner (and similarly, people that intentionally come up with the most fucked up ways to say Ahmadinejads name, etc.) I would consider it a day in which I actually learned something from NSG. So please respond.

First off, the truly "childish" response is to include references to genitalia.

Second, I refer to the two named organizations as I do because I hate terrorist groups in general, and Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH in particular, with the heat of a hundred supernovas. I don't want to talk to them, understand them, or gain "insight" on their "psychology". I want to see them defeated, crushed, destroyed, eliminated from this earth once and for all.

As to the actual argumentation, what purpose does Hezbollah achieve by attacking Israel at the moment? There's really no geopolitical gain, and if you think the game Hezbollah is playing is something other than geopolitical, I'd say you're a fool. Attacking Israel only risks another conflict in which they use up more resources and lose fighters. And furthermore, considering the elections and what not, they probably wouldn't act now anyways (seeing as how things tend to get a bit frantic when jobs are at stake).

Hez-BLAAH gains additional "street cred" with the "Arab street" by appearing to come to the aid of its fellow terrorists. Any resources they use up will likely be resupplied by Iran and other terrorist enablers.

Furthermore, considering Iran has never made a specific nuclear threat against Israel (and the only threats at all has been some vague rants from Ahmadinejad), it would look rather bad on Israel to carry out a random strike on Iran.

The expressed intention to "wipe Israel off the face of the map", coupled with the capability to do so, is more than enough reason for Israel to act. Israel should do whatever it takes to ensure its survival and prevent another attempted genocide. And "not looking bad" is most likely not one of Israel's primary concerns.

Whether or not Iran actually intends to use Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies would be irrelevent because 1) I highly doubt Iran hasn't considered the possibility of an aerial strike and has likely made safeguards for their programs and 2) an assault by land would fail.

Destruction of Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH are legitimate goals in their own right. They are also a safeguard against the very real probability that Iran would use them as proxies.

As for whether or not air and/or land strikes would succeed or not, that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against Israel.

A JEW making a balanced comment on the situation? What's next, bacon for Channukah?


One of the more ignorant comments on the thread so far. Dissappointingly coming from one of our generally smarter members.


I imagine he's talking about fertiliser and ammonium nitrate.

Its the oul dog for the hard road. Big difference between a landrover and a 70 ton mbt though.


What do you believe the "appropriate" response to continuous, random, non-precision rocket fire at civilian areas should be? Playing mahjongg and taking tea?.


Shooting the people who do it, and not bombing the region they live in? This is the result of months of planning. Its got fuck all to with 400 rockets, and everything to do with Febs election. Hes doing the equivalent of mentioning how many "negroes" hes hung.

Snip

I see no "FAT-ah" or "Iran from the Americans" jokes in there. Do better next time.

I see no "FAT-ah" or "Iran from the Americans" jokes in there. Do better next time.

Sorry for not being inclusive enough. But if you like, I'll throw in A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket for good measure ;)

Sorry for not being inclusive enough. But if you like, I'll throw in A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket for good measure ;)

Yeah you know, he was talking about jokes, and not the dull, moronic laughter based on bigotry and ignorance. While the latter can be somewhat amusing, so can you, but that alone doesn't qualify.

It's the Palestinians' fault for leaving their children in a war zone.

Maybe they should have put their women and children at the far end of Gaza

Yes yes, the Palestinian women and children should have simply moved, using their vast amounts of social and economic mobility not to mention the cash they'd stored up because they're well-to-do Americans. And the fact that they didn't means they deserved to get killed.

Any other retarded trolling arguments? Maybe in addition to blaming the victim, but you could express your usual ululations of sexual thrill at the vicarious death and carnage?

I don't believe Palestine is a signatory to the Geneva Conventin.Palestine is not a state.

Palestine is not a state.
Well, exactly.

Palestine is not a state.

Indeed, it's a country.

Indeed, it's a country.

Well the point is that it's OK to kill them because "there are no Palestinians."

Guilt-free genocide!

Indeed, it's a country.

In a little while, it's going to be a pile of rubble punctuated by craters.

Indeed, it's a country.No it is not. It is a territory occupied, illegally settled, and militarily controlled by an invading force.

No it is not. It is a territory occupied, illegally settled, and militarily controlled by an invading force.

Gaza doesn't have any Israelis stationed inside of it. Not for some time.

Soon, I'm sure they'll be back. But that's what firing rockets at Israel will get you.

Gaza doesn't have any Israelis stationed inside of it. Not for some time.

Soon, I'm sure they'll be back. But that's what firing rockets at Israel will get you.But aren't Israelis constantly firing rockets into the Gaza Strip all year as well?

But aren't Israelis constantly firing rockets into the Gaza Strip all year as well?

no, no they are not. Not one rocket, not one missle, not one mortar was fired by Israel during the entire duration of the cease fire. I can't understand how anyone can make an opinion about a situation while being so admittedly ignorant about the actual facts of it. Between your "so has Palestine ever been an independant nation" and your "well, wasn't Israel attacking Gaza too?", it strikes me that you don't know a damned thing about the situation, or its history.

But aren't Israelis constantly firing rockets into the Gaza Strip all year as well?

Only in response to Palestinian rocket fire. And most of the time, they don't respond to Palestinian rocket fire.

There's a difference in the rocket fire, as well. Palestinian rockets are unguided rockets meant to target a civilian area, and Israeli rockets are precision guided munitions.

That last part doesn't help when they staff the rocket launching site and rocket factory with small children.

They went a whole week with 200 Palestinian rockets fired, and no Israeli response until now.

Any other retarded trolling arguments? Maybe in addition to blaming the victim, but you could express your usual ululations of sexual thrill at the vicarious death and carnage?


In a little while, it's going to be a pile of rubble punctuated by craters.

Put that thing away, this is a forum frequented by children.

no, no they are not. Not one rocket, not one missle, not one mortar was fired by Israel during the entire duration of the cease fire. I can't understand how anyone can make an opinion about a situation while being so admittedly ignorant about the actual facts of it. Between your "so has Palestine ever been an independant nation" and your "well, wasn't Israel attacking Gaza too?", it strikes me that you don't know a damned thing about the situation, or its history.are you a jew?

are you a jew?

Of all the people on this forum (aside from Nodinia), Neo Art is the last person I would see coming to support Israel. So you can take it as gospel that the Israelis didn't violate the cease fire.

are you a jew?

He is, indeed, Jewish. Jew sounds a bit despective.

no, no they are not. Not one rocket, not one missle, not one mortar was fired by Israel during the entire duration of the cease fire. I can't understand how anyone can make an opinion about a situation while being so admittedly ignorant about the actual facts of it. Between your "so has Palestine ever been an independant nation" and your "well, wasn't Israel attacking Gaza too?", it strikes me that you don't know a damned thing about the situation, or its history.

Yeah, but doesn't Mossad continue covert assassination ops even during cease fires?

Yeah, but doesn't Mossad continue covert assassination ops even during cease fires?

They do that by Hellfire missile on occasion, but not recently.

Of all the people on this forum (aside from Nodinia), Neo Art is the last person I would see coming to support Israel.

I support some actions of both parties, and don't support some actions of others.

I support a free and independant palestine. I also support the right of a nation to defend itself from attacks over its border.

Conversely, I don't support violating ceasefires. Nor do I support bombing civilian targets with little to no tactical necessity.

Neither side has clean hands in this mess, and both have valid grievences.

I support some actions of both parties, and don't support some actions of others.

I support a free and independant palestine. I also support the right of a nation to defend itself from attacks over its border.

Conversely, I don't support violating ceasefires. Nor do I support bombing civilian targets with little to no tactical necessity.

Neither side has clean hands in this mess, and both have valid grievences.

At least you're not blind, like half the people on this forum.

He is, indeed, Jewish. Jew sounds a bit despective.There is a difference between being Jewish and being a Jew???

Anyways, it means he is biased.

Neither side has clean hands in this mess, and both have valid grievences.
Quite.

Which is why the incessant threads of, 'Palestine is in the wrong!... No! Israel is in the wrong!", are so mind-numbingly stupid.

Gaza doesn't have any Israelis stationed inside of it. Not for some time.

Soon, I'm sure they'll be back. But that's what firing rockets at Israel will get you.

This is who Israel is fighting against:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm



Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

. . . .

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

. . . .

Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam.

. . . .

Article Five:

Time extent of the Islamic Resistance Movement: By adopting Islam as its way of life, the Movement goes back to the time of the birth of the Islamic message, of the righteous ancestor, for Allah is its target, the Prophet is its example and the Koran is its constitution. Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe. This being so, it extends to the depth of the earth and reaches out to the heaven.

. . . .

Article Seven:
As a result of the fact that those Moslems who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it and its stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, the Movement is a universal one. . . .

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

[cf. Sahih Bukhari Hadith, Book 52, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.177 ) ]

Article 11

. . . . Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

. . . .

Article 13


. . . There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

. . . .

There is no negotiating with Ham-ass. They must be utterly destroyed.

At least you're not blind, like half the people on this forum.

At least you're not an arrogant douchebag.

There is a difference between being Jewish and being a Jew???

Anyways, it means he is biased.

Actually, Neo isn't biased. Keep saying that though, because it's very amusing.

I support some actions of both parties, and don't support some actions of others.

I support a free and independant palestine. I also support the right of a nation to defend itself from attacks over its border.

Conversely, I don't support violating ceasefires. Nor do I support bombing civilian targets with little to no tactical necessity.

Neither side has clean hands in this mess, and both have valid grievences.

No, you're biased. Because you're a Jew. HappyLesbo pointed that out.

Now, accept Jesus as your personal saviour, so you can be objective.

t
there is no negotiating with ham-ass.

lol ham-ass is funny cuz foreign languages are funny and incomprehensible to me!

At least you're not blind, like half the people on this forum.

It's possible to support the idea of a free Palestine without having to believe that the Palestinians are, in their entirety, utterly sweet, innocent, and without any bad acts, and were forced into violence by the mean mean Israel, who just wont leave them alone

no, no they are not. Not one rocket, not one missle, not one mortar was fired by Israel during the entire duration of the cease fire. I can't understand how anyone can make an opinion about a situation while being so admittedly ignorant about the actual facts of it. Between your "so has Palestine ever been an independant nation" and your "well, wasn't Israel attacking Gaza too?", it strikes me that you don't know a damned thing about the situation, or its history.

Well, not exactly true

November 20, 2008
Clashes, rocket fire, and threats of escalation challenge Gaza's five-month-old ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. In the past two weeks, Israeli forces have reportedly killed 17 Palestinian fighters, while militant groups in Gaza have fired over 140 rockets into Israel.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2963

Neither side really adhered to the cease fire - they just held back from unleashing a barrage of rockets and a barrage of airstrikes until the ceasefire lapsed.

Edit: A good article actually, especially given where it comes from.

No, you're biased. Because you're a Jew. HappyLesbo pointed that out.

Now, accept Jesus as your personal saviour, so you can be objective.But Jesus is a Jew as well. That doesn't better anything.

Neither side really adhered to the cease fire - they just held back from unleashing a barrage of rockets and a barrage of airstrikes until the ceasefire lapsed.

I'll have to double check to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that every Israeli shooting was in response to either a cross border incursion, or being fired upon. Technically, defensive actions are not a cease fire violation, as a cease fire precludes instigating hostile action, not defending yourself from it.

But Jesus is a Jew as well. That doesn't better anything.

Jesus was a Jew, but he converted to Southern Baptist in college. Well, trade school, actually.

I'll have to double check to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that every Israeli shooting was in response to either a cross border incursion, or being fired upon. Technically, defensive actions are not a cease fire violation, as a cease fire precludes instigating hostile action, not defending yourself from it.

No, you said they didn't fire one missile, rocket or mortar. That's what you said.

That you meant firing one unprovoked is one of those stupid replies that only makes sense in context.

Answer the question, are you a Jew?

There is a difference between being Jewish and being a Jew???

Anyways, it means he is biased.

Of all the people on this forum, Neo Art is one poster to which the term biased doesn't apply. Hence why Neo A is Jewish and not a Jew.

Once again, I find that term despective and distasteful.

Of all the people on this forum, Neo Art is one poster to which the term biased doesn't apply. Hence why Neo A is Jewish and not a Jew.

Once again, I find that term despective and distasteful.Aha. So I must call an American Americanish from now on?

I'll have to double check to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that every Israeli shooting was in response to either a cross border incursion, or being fired upon. Technically, defensive actions are not a cease fire violation, as a cease fire precludes instigating hostile action, not defending yourself from it.

What the IDF would define as a "defensive action" would have pre-emptive moves in it also - where the IDF says something is a "defined threat" and moves in.

According to that article, (not vouching for it's accuracy by the way) actions back in earlier November began as: The current series of clashes started when the IDF penetrated 250 meters into Gaza to locate and destroy a Hamas tunnel that was reportedly intended to support kidnapping operations.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2963

To me, that would be firstly pre-emptive, and secondly it can be argued defensively because it is pre-emption.

Aha. So I must call an American Americanish from now on?

No, but you're indeed trolling another poster. What's more, you're flaming him. That's against the rules of the forum.

No, you said they didn't fire one missile, rocket or mortar. That's what you said.

That you meant firing one unprovoked is one of those stupid replies that only makes sense in context.

I stand sufficiently chastized.

You bastard

I stand sufficiently chastized.

You bastard

Ah, but it wasn't me who chastized you, so all is well.

No, but you're indeed trolling another poster. What's more, you're flaming him. That's against the rules of the forum.

Oh, so One Rat calls me a bastard, you say nothing, but HappyLesbo making an issue of somebody's Jewpitude is flaming?

I renew my designation of you as a slattern.

Oh, so One Rat calls me a bastard, you say nothing, but HappyLesbo making an issue of somebody's Jewpitude is flaming?

I renew my designation of you as a slattern.

Yeah, but we like Neo Art.

What the IDF would define as a "defensive action" would have pre-emptive moves in it also - where the IDF says something is a "defined threat" and moves in.

According to that article, (not vouching for it's accuracy by the way) actions back in earlier November began as:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2963

To me, that would be firstly pre-emptive, and secondly it can be argued defensively because it is pre-emption.

250 meters to destroy a tunnel?

How many inches is that in American?

Oh, so One Rat calls me a bastard, you say nothing, but HappyLesbo making an issue of somebody's Jewpitude is flaming?

I renew my designation of you as a slattern.

My good sir, I have come to the conclusion that you can defend thyself very good. I only jumped because I think any comment that denotes anti-semitism is vulgar and horrible for me.

If it helps, I am your slattern for life.

250 meters to destroy a tunnel?

How many inches is that in american?

9842.519

Yeah, but we like Neo Art.

You know what comes from liking Jews?

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpo0qllZw8

No, but you're indeed trolling another poster. What's more, you're flaming him. That's against the rules of the forum.Calling a Jew a Jew is flaming? Like calling a Catholic a Catholic?? That's the dumbest thing I have read in a while. According to Wikipedia and several encyclopediae any adherent of Judaism is called a Jew.

9842.519

47.

Everything is bigger in America.

250 meters to destroy a tunnel?

How many inches is that in American?

Over 9000.

Like calling a Catholic a Catholic??
How f***ing DARE you! Leave my presence - NOW!

You know what comes from liking Jews?

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpo0qllZw8

The women are hot but the men are dressed all in white and have very little motor control? :confused:

My good sir, I have come to the conclusion that you can defend thyself very good. I only jumped because I think any comment that denotes anti-semitism is vulgar and horrible for me.

If it helps, I am your slattern for life.

Well, asking if he was a Jew, and claiming that his Jewerdom makes him any more biased then anybody else was pretty lame, I admit.

Neo Art is biased, though. Not because he's a Jew, but because a young commando named Benjamin Netanyahu once saved his life during a Bagel Riot in New York. Its true, ask him.

Calling a Jew a Jew is flaming? Like calling a Catholic a Catholic?? That's the dumbest thing I have read in a while. According to Wikipedia and several encyclopediae any adherent of Judaism is called a Jew.

The context in which you're using the word Jew is what makes it inflammatory. Harken to your pasts posts about Neo Art being Jewish.

Well, asking if he was a Jew, and claiming that his Jewerdom makes him any more biased then anybody else was pretty lame, I admit.

Neo Art is biased, though. Not because he's a Jew, but because a young commando named Benjamin Netanyahu once saved his life during a Bagel Riot in New York. Its true, ask him.

I bet you were that commando!:eek2:
You know too much!

The context in which you're using the word Jew is what makes it inflammatory. Harken to your pasts posts about Neo Art being Jewish.WTF?? He is a Jew and he is pro-Israel. No surprise. Subsequently I do not take him seriously. He believes in the same shit that makes Israel kill Palestinians, the same shit that makes Israel think they deserve the land. You know, the whole "chosen people" and "promised land" shit.

250 meters to destroy a tunnel?

How many inches is that in American?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzLKKe6TzU

WTF?? He is a Jew and he is pro-Israel. No surprise. Subsequently I do not take him seriously. He believes in the same shit that makes Israel kill Palestinians, the same shit that makes Israel think they deserve the land. You know, the whole "chosen people" and "promised land" shit.

Nowhere in this thread has Neo Art claimed that. Have you actually read his posts? Just because he's of Jewish background doesn't mean he will come to defend Israeli killing Palestinian. Read, once again, before posting nonesense. And this post, like the others, go in detriment of a poster that seldom if ever gives us biased arguments.

This may not have been offensive (though, in the context of later posts, it was).
are you a jew?

This is trolling all Jews on the forum and flaming one, Neo Art:

There is a difference between being Jewish and being a Jew???

Anyways, it means he is biased.

This is where the person concerned made a statement that should have ended your queries:

I support some actions of both parties, and don't support some actions of others. <SNIP>
Neither side has clean hands in this mess, and both have valid grievences.

Other posters, including a long-term political opponent, Hotwife, supported Neo Art's statement.

The fact that you continued your attacks despite this is why you received a red-card warning, not a yellow card.

This off-topic part of the discussion is now closed.

Move along now, move along, there's nothing to see here.

WTF?? He is a Jew and he is pro-Israel. No surprise. Subsequently I do not take him seriously. He believes in the same shit that makes Israel kill Palestinians, the same shit that makes Israel think they deserve the land. You know, the whole "chosen people" and "promised land" shit.

Please show, anywhere, in Neo Art's opinions, where he has ever been a proponent of "the whole 'chosen people' and 'promised land' shit".

You are shitting from a great height on your own credibility by the way you are mischaracterizing his position.

EDIT: I see a mod is already handling this. I see also that I spammed the thread with dancing Jewesses on youtube. I see that I should go check another thread...

eh, it's irrelevant now.

There are now two complaints in Moderation about the actions of posters in this thread.

The topic is a hot-button issue for many people. Please make sure your comments are directed at the events under discussion and the arguments other posters make about them, not at the posters themselves .

Play nice.

That last part doesn't help when they staff the rocket launching site and rocket factory with small children.


Source?

Now, here’s the thing, let’s drop the hyperboli, drop the hysterics, and talk about this rationally.
Oh how I wish that the actual participants in the middle east would heed your advice!

So grow the fuck up and stop acting like one party is the villain here. Both groups have traditional claims to the land. Both groups have reason to be angry at the other. Neither group trusts one another. And neither one is going to stand down until the other does. No good guys, no bad guys, just a bad cycle of violence that will continue until BOTH sides stand down, and start treating each other like human beings.
I already subscribe to your newsletter it seems, as I agree with this and have for a long time now.

International law and norms specifically bars wars for conquest.
The acquisition of land/territory by force and wars of agression, to be more accurate.

The Six Day War, from the perspective of Israel, was not a war for conquest, it was an act of war against them.
A bit debatable, as Israel pre-emptively launched an attack.

But frankly, I'm tired of talking about past events, and I don't see how going over it time and time again is constructive towards finding a solution to this conflict. Rather, I'd just say what you have said above, and push history to the back of (not out of) my mind and try to find a way to make the Israelis and Paliestinians of today live side by side in peace.

*snip*
Still refusing to answer my questions I see...

I'm sad about the violence, but Israel had no other choice. Who wouldn't be mad if there were rockets landing DAILY on your country? :(
And of course, you could turn that around. Let me give it a go:

"I'm sad about the violence, but Israel had no other choice. Who wouldn't be mad if they were suffering from a blocade / bombs weekly landed on your country / were under occupation / etc."

Pick one. Knock yourself out. It doesn't bring us any closer to a solution though. It just keeps the violence going.

Ha'aretz (a left-wing Israeli paper) has some interesting points to make on this conflict:

Trying to 'teach Hamas a lesson' is fundamentally wrong

By Tom Segev

*SNIP*
I agree with a whole lot of what he said. This has been tried before, and the situation has not improved.

Isn't it about time to try a different tactic? Find some moderates (Abbas used to be an example) that's not as easily corruptible and support them quietly, bargain with them, and make them be seen as people who gets result and improves the standard of living among the Palestinians. That's the short description, but I think that could work.

no, no they are not. Not one rocket, not one missle, not one mortar was fired by Israel during the entire duration of the cease fire.
Well, there were at least two bigger incursions. November 4, as I think have been mentioned, and November 12 (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7fcf4f3a-34e9-408b-a896-c5617b5df621).

Of course, the IDF tries to justify these incursions, but there's no independent verification of those justifications.

Bottom line, I believe both sides violated the cease fire.
Of all the people on this forum (aside from Nodinia), Neo Art is the last person I would see coming to support Israel. So you can take it as gospel that the Israelis didn't violate the cease fire.
Why?


There is no negotiating with Ham-ass. They must be utterly destroyed.
Goes to show that you know little about the moderates. No surprise really, their voices have a tendency to be drowned out - and they tend to be squeezed out of the top positions if they're not killed by Israel, Fatah or Hamas rivals first. But they do exist.

And those are the people that should be negotiated with.

But frankly, I'm tired of talking about past events, and I don't see how going over it time and time again is constructive towards finding a solution to this conflict. Rather, I'd just say what you have said above, and push history to the back of (not out of) my mind and try to find a way to make the Israelis and Paliestinians of today live side by side in peace.
This is something that ought to be drilled into the head of everybody in the Middle East (and quite a few people here). I remember when Kryozerkia tried a 'progressive discussion' on the problem a while ago doing exactly that. It lasted all of about five posts.

Palestinian rockets are unguided rockets meant to target a civilian area, and Israeli rockets are precision guided munitions.

That last part doesn't help...

...when Israel targets cars driving through crowded streets in Gaza city, for example.

Example from August 2003 (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/27/content_258611.htm)
The helicopters fired a salvo of missiles at the car during the evening rush hour in Jabalya refugee camp near Gaza City.

Two members of the military wing of the militant Islamic group Hamas who were in the car survived the strike, with one of the men sustaining only light injuries, Hamas sources said.

But the blasts killed a 64-year-old man passing by and injured 20 people, including six children, medics said.

October 2003 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-launches-air-strikes-against-hamas-in-gaza-758284.html)
The pickup had stopped at a traffic light near a gas station, on a busy street crowded with school children, when the missiles hit the front of the vehicle. A kindergarten and an elementary school had just let out students for the day.

A Palestinian motorist was also killed in the attack. Palestinian hospital officials said 12 bystanders were wounded, four of them in serious condition.

...2006... (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/8716.htm)
Israeli aircraft fired a missile at a car in the crowded Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza on Tuesday, missing targeted Palestinian militants but killing a teen, two children and wounding nine people, clouding efforts to restart peace talks.

...and 2008, from the last few days. (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EDIS-7MSLBF?OpenDocument)
In the Middle Gaza district, IOF fired missiles at an empty car in the An-Nuseirat refugee camp. Three bystanders were killed, including a child.

This is something that ought to be drilled into the head of everybody in the Middle East (and quite a few people here). I remember when Kryozerkia tried a 'progressive discussion' on the problem a while ago doing exactly that. It lasted all of about five posts.

My feeling is, it doesn't really matter anymore how it started; what matters is how we make it end and how we secure a lasting peace.

My feeling is, it doesn't really matter anymore how it started; what matters is how we make it end and how we secure a lasting peace.Pretty easy. Either make Israel leave the occupied territories and give sovereignty to Palestinians in their own state, or finally annex the occupied territories and make its inhabitants full Israeli citizens (with voting rights an all).

I agree with the former idea, seeing as the Palestinian reaction to the second one might be a bit..violent.

Not sure if it's going to happen though. Seems like any hope of peace died with Rabin.

give sovereignty to Palestinians in their own state, or finally annex the occupied territories and make its inhabitants full Israeli citizens (with voting rights an all).

Palestine is a sovereign state.

The problem is that both sides have reasons to hate each other and it seems like the violence will never stop.

The problem is that both sides have reasons to hate each other and it seems like the violence will never stop.
Indeed. Strong emotion, hate. *for the record, still hopes cooler heads will prevail around there*

Palestine is a sovereign state.
Since when?

... Seems like any hope of peace died with Rabin.It did. When Israel elected Netanyahu peace was finally dead. No change since.

Since when?

Since Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip.

Since Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

When did that happen by the way?

Since Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza strip.
Israel has never pulled out of the West bank. And it has never given up military control over the West Bank or Gaza.
In fact Israel is constantly increasing its Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which indeed constitutes a gradual ethnic cleansing.

When did that happen by the way?

It didn't, ignore me.

Since when?

It did. When Israel elected Netanyahu peace was finally dead. No change since.
Doesn't mean that there won't ever be. I'm sure there are plenty of moderates on both sides who'd much rather just live in peace.

For now they would seem to be the silent minority though.:(

Doesn't mean that there won't ever be. I'm sure there are plenty of moderates on both sides who'd much rather just live in peace.

For now they would seem to be the silent minority though.:(I do not expect too much from a state that has Orthodox Judaism as its de facto state religion.

I do not expect too much from a state that has Orthodox Judaism as its de facto state religion.
Do be carefull when making statements like that, as they can be mistaken for a blanket dislike of a group of people based on their religion.

First off, the truly "childish" response is to include references to genitalia.

In what way is it childish? It refers to the assumption I made about your process of thinking as one that is hyper-masculine and rather violent, which is proved by your post below.

Second, I refer to the two named organizations as I do because I hate terrorist groups in general, and Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH in particular, with the heat of a hundred supernovas. I don't want to talk to them, understand them, or gain "insight" on their "psychology". I want to see them defeated, crushed, destroyed, eliminated from this earth once and for all.

So you use those terms because you hate them? But what does that accomplish? Making fun of your "enemy" is a long way from destroying them.

As well, there's a lot of reasons why I could say that sort of thinking is bad and just leads to endless conflict (if policy based on such thinking is actually carried out), but considering it won't change your opinion, I'll just leave it at that.

Hez-BLAAH gains additional "street cred" with the "Arab street" by appearing to come to the aid of its fellow terrorists. Any resources they use up will likely be resupplied by Iran and other terrorist enablers.

Perhaps, but where is Iran going to get all this money considering oil revenue is going down, the worldwide economy is hurting, and financial institutions are getting more and more cautious with their money? I mean really, Hezbollah already has credibility and respect after they functionally defeated an Israeli incursion, or if you'd prefer, they weathered it.

The expressed intention to "wipe Israel off the face of the map", coupled with the capability to do so, is more than enough reason for Israel to act. Israel should do whatever it takes to ensure its survival and prevent another attempted genocide. And "not looking bad" is most likely not one of Israel's primary concerns.

It's not a credible threat. Ahmadinjad doesn't control Iran, the mullahs do. And really, most of his talk has been during times of domestic trouble in Iran (like bad economic times), probably to distract attention from home with war-mongering rhetoric. I mean we've threatened Iran and North Korea, but we won't be invading them, at least not anytime soon.

As it's been said numerous times, "Wipe Israel off the map" is a misquote, he said that the state would collapse and that it would be good. Whether or not you agree with him is one thing, but he made no threat (at least in this specific instance, feel free to provide another).

But what I'm saying is that there isn't really a threat of another genocide. You realize a nuke hitting Israel would effect Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and every other country nearby, including Iran? If there was a credible threat and it wasn't just fear-rhetoric to get votes from politicians, then the leaders of most Arab countries would be opposing Iran getting nukes, because they don't want to die in a Nuclear Holocaust either.

Looking bad should be a concern of any good leader/country. If your country looks bad, it makes it hard to get help, which in actual times of need, can be rather devestating.

Destruction of Ham-ass and Hez-BLAAH are legitimate goals in their own right. They are also a safeguard against the very real probability that Iran would use them as proxies.

So using violence against Hamas is justified? You're modeling their thinking. They think Israel is a violent, demonic, oppressor who should be destroyed at all costs, even if innocent people die. If people in charge would stop thinking like this, it would go a long way to ending the conflict.

As for Hezbollah, they've been rather quiet recently. And I'd say that the kidnapping of a soldier or two doesn't justify killing thousands of innocent civilians. I mean really, people talk shit about Hezbollah a lot, but since the end of the attempted Isreali strike in 2006 (I think), I don't think they've been sending rockets out.

As for whether or not air and/or land strikes would succeed or not, that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet against Israel.

I would bet against any country that engages in hostile actions miles upon miles away from their own state, particularly when the target state is seperated from the homeland by not-so friendly governments (like Syria). Particularly when the nation being attacked has a sizeable (or superior) population that is relatively homogenous (unlike say, Iraq, which has been a shit storm regardless).

Do be carefull when making statements like that, as they can be mistaken for a blanket dislike of a group of people based on their religion.

Oh, she (if it is a she, that is) has been at it for a while.

Do be carefull when making statements like that, as they can be mistaken for a blanket dislike of a group of people based on their religion.I don't like the religion and subsequently I don't like its adherents and what the adherents do based on the religion's teachings.
What I see is that all the atrocities committed by Israel in the past 60 years are based on the ideology that is the foundation of Judaism. Israel is conducting an occupation and is shooting and bombing Palestinians at random. That is plain evil.

I don't like the religion and subsequently I don't like its adherents and what the adherents do based on the religion's teachings.
What I see is that all the atrocities committed by Israel in the past 60 years are based on the ideology that is the foundation of Judaism. Israel is conducting an occupation and is shooting and bombing Palestinians at random. That is plain evil.

I don't like the religion and subsequently I don't like its adherents and what the adherents do based on the religion's teachings.
What I see is that all the atrocities committed by Palestine in the past 60 years are based on the ideology that is the foundation of Islam. Plestine is shooting and bombing Palestinians at random. That is plain evil.

I don't like the religion and subsequently I don't like its adherents and what the adherents do based on the religion's teachings.
What I see is that all the atrocities committed by Palestine in the past 60 years are based on the ideology that is the foundation of Islam. Plestine is shooting and bombing Palestinians at random. That is plain evil.Palestinians have never invaded foreign territory to set up a state. There is no such thing comparable to Zionism on the Arab side.

Bit blunt, Adun, but a good point raised nevertheless (writing your other name would take too long :P )

Religion isn't the issue, it never has been. Look at history and you'll see countless examples of religion being used as a excuse for just this sort of thing.

Bit blunt, Adun, but a good point raised nevertheless (writing your other name would take too long :P )

Religion isn't the issue, it never has been. Look at history and you'll see countless examples of religion being used as a excuse for just this sort of thing.True. The issue is LAND. However, on the Jewish side, the basis of the claim to the land is religion. Exclusively. "Promised Land" you know.

True. The issue is LAND. However, on the Jewish side, the basis of the claim to the land is religion. Exclusively. "Promised Land" you know.
Wrong. The basis on the Jewish side is history, ie that they were there first.

Wrong. The basis on the Jewish side is history, ie that they were there first.Alleged history, based on religion. And don't forget, Arabs originally come from that area as well. Even according to the Biblical account.
But there is only one group claiming they had been given the land by their invisible sky fairy.

*shrugs*
And we are right back to where we started, namely that they should both try to find a way to live together. And I'm still not buying your theory on religion being the problem, I think its more simpler than that, I suspect the true culprit is good ole human nature.

One thing's for sure, calling either side names isn't going to help matters any, as there's more than enough blame to go around for this mess.

Alleged history, based on religion.
Pretty sure that they lived in the area, then started a religion saying so.
And don't forget, Arabs originally come from that area as well. Even according to the Biblical account.
Uhu. David and Goliath and all that. Guess what, David wasn't an Arab.
But there is only one group claiming they had been given the land by their invisible sky fairy.
Uhu...

Pretty sure that they lived in the area, then started a religion saying so.Many others lived in the area as well. Jews or their ancestors have never been the majority in the area, until 1948.

Uhu. David and Goliath and all that. Guess what, David wasn't an Arab.No. The offspring of Abraham and all that.

Uhu...Is there a group claiming that their god has given them a "Promised Land" other than Jews?

Doesn't mean that there won't ever be. I'm sure there are plenty of moderates on both sides who'd much rather just live in peace.

For now they would seem to be the silent minority though.:(

I don't think that they're being silent, I think it's that their voices are being drowned out.

But as Collectivity posted earlier (the opinion piece from Ha'retz), there are some moderate voices making themselves heard.

I don't think that they're being silent, I think it's that their voices are being drowned out.

But as Collectivity posted earlier (the opinion piece from Ha'retz), there are some moderate voices making themselves heard.Moderate voices are not changing any politics.

Is there a group claiming that their god has given them a "Promised Land" other than Jews?


http://cedarfort.com/catalog/0882903209.html

Many others lived in the area as well. Jews or their ancestors have never been the majority in the area, until 1948.
You got anything to back this up?

http://cedarfort.com/catalog/0882903209.html

Manifest Destiny for the win!!

You got anything to back this up?

It's probably true (at least for most of history).

But statistics from WWII and before probably aren't going to be very conclusive. So it's hard to say either way.

You got anything to back this up?All of recorded Levantine history from 2000 BCE until the UN division plan???

What other points?:rolleyes:



1) Instead of whining on about "what it should be" or "why isn't it like this way" like a crying child, I clarified out what the situation is currently. No you didn't. Neo Art did. You jumped in with a comment about international law...while claiming to not want to talk about international law. As well, attempting by implication to call Neo Art's commentary 'the crying of a child' or intimating that he was going on about 'what it should be' or 'why it isn't it like this' suggests you didn't actually read anything he wrote. Shame. You might learn something.


2) I was correcting Neo Art as it matters not an ounce what one side 'perceives' the law to be. Um. So you don't actually understand what international law is. Gotcha.

3) Call international law pointless - fine. I would be one of the first to agree with you everything fricking time. Now that's out of the way, back in reality we still have in practice ..... international law. No one likes it, but you can't escape it.
Oh, you mean you REALLY don't know what international law is! I recognised your ignorance was broad, I just didn't think it had so much depth.

It's almost as if you believe that 'international law' exists as some sort of power in and of itself, floating out there, ready to pounce. Rather than realising that 'international law' exists only insomuch as sovereign nations create domestic legislation to adhere to international treaties/covenants/declarations. Essentially international law is a voluntary exercise.

If you had delved even a little into that international law of which you speak, you'd realise that the last thing one should ever say about it is, "You can't escape it".

I think that a lot of people out there may believe that Hitler and the Holocaust was the Darkness and the state of Israel was the new Messiah.

There is an enormous amount of belief and "Sky-God" bothering regarding the state of Israel that shouldn't get in the way of facts.

The issue of legitimacy is a thorny one. Jews, Christians and Moslems can claim a "right" to the "Holy Land" (that is what the effing Crusades were all about).
Abraham, the father of the three great monotheistic religions came from Akkad (modern Iraq) and settled in Canaan. (That's if we believe the history in the Bible - but none of the three religions question it..... the thorny issue of birthrites comes later.)
So why not have a secular state in Israel? Hmm! A good theory and I'd stick my hand up for it but presently the Orthodox mob have the power to oppose this. It aint gonna happen in my lifetime - unless the real messiah arrives and says, "Cut the crap! I'm here to make you guys get on with one another".
"Legitimacy" is pretty much a red herring. As Otto von Bismarck said, "The important issues are decided by Blood and Iron".
Peace negotiators have to deal with "Facts on the Ground". Therefore, negotiation has to start with mutual recognition of each other's "states".
I believe that Israel's grossly disproportionate response to Hamas provocation (which in turn was partly motivated by far-right settler attacks on Palestinians) was an attempt to place Israel in a strong position for the inevitable post-election and post -inaugration of Obama Middle east peace negotiations.
And a merry Salaam/Shalom to you all. By the way Happy "Lesbo", I'm still not convinced you are anything other than an anti-semite or someone who is trolling to expose the real anti-semites on Nation States. At any rate, I'm glad that you've stopped your more obvious trolling. When you present a reasoned argument then people will take you more seriously but if you induldge in gratuitously racist remarks, you'll get banned by the Mods and few will shed a tear on your behalf.

:rolleyes:
No, seriously. If I avoided anything, it was because the thread would have veered several light years off the topic because of that.

No you didn't. Neo Art did.
I'm not allowed to correct the wording of a specific sentence to make it accurate? Because there's a world of difference between what Neo Art stated and what I stated.

As well, attempting by implication to call Neo Art's commentary 'the crying of a child' or intimating that he was going on about 'what it should be' or 'why it isn't it like this' suggests you didn't actually read anything he wrote. Shame. You might learn something.
Um. This post(er) was who I was referring to - not Neo Art http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14342334&postcount=255
And then pretty much this
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14343150&postcount=286
I don't even disagree with Neo Art, and in fact for the latter post I was very much in his corner.

Um. So you don't actually understand what international law is. Gotcha.
Good refutation of my point there. Please, do tell me what it is.

Oh, you mean you REALLY don't know what international law is! I recognised your ignorance was broad, I just didn't think it had so much depth.
This should be fun....


It's almost as if you believe that 'international law' exists as some sort of power in and of itself, floating out there, ready to pounce.
Naturally, because that's what I said.

Rather than realising that 'international law' exists only insomuch as sovereign nations create domestic legislation to adhere to international treaties/covenants/declarations.
You realise, given the context of the thread, and my and Neo Arts posts, the "international law" was do to with "international peace and security" right? Do you know how law regarding international peace and security is passed? Because it sure as fuck ain't by a treaty.

Essentially international law is a voluntary exercise.
Being subject to a binding resolution does not require your say so. So no, essentially international law is not voluntary.

If you had delved even a little into that international law of which you speak, you'd realise that the last thing one should ever say about it is, "You can't escape it".
You can't escape it - you can ignore it but it's always there in the background and if you're not politically strong enough to avoid censure, then you will be brought up on it.

I don't even disagree with Neo Art, and in fact for the latter post I was very much in her corner. (Her, right?)

wait...what?

wait...what?

What - I agree with your overall points through this thread.

I just wanted to factually shed some light on one or two specific issues: doesn't mean I like the facts anymore than anyone else but at least then one can base a point on fuller information.

What - I agree with your overall points through this thread.

I just wanted to factually shed some light on one or two specific issues: doesn't mean I like the facts anymore than anyone else but at least then one can base a point on fuller information.

Psst...

Neo is a bloke.

Psst...

Neo is a bloke.

DAMMIT!


(Sorry Neo :( )

Well, he is very soft and feminine and huggable... In both picture and posts!


:tongue: :p

Well, he is very soft and feminine and huggable... In both picture and posts!


:tongue: :p

I've never seen a photo of Neo.

I always imagined him to be very Alpha male.

I've never seen a photo of Neo.

I always imagined him to be very Alpha male.

Funny, I've always thought of Neesika like that....

*runs* :p

DAMMIT!


(Sorry Neo :( )

wait, you have IN YOUR SIGNATURE a joke about gay sex between me and Gavlen involving condoms. I'm unsure how more explicit that could get.

wait, you have IN YOUR SIGNATURE a joke about gay sex between me and Gavlen involving condoms. I'm unsure how more explicit that could get.

I thought it...could have.... :$ been a woman... and another...:$ woman.... with a... a...


*gets flustered*

*runs*

At least you guys are making love not war!
But back to the thread........
Israel has a very cute Foreign Minister but Israeli planes are STILL bombing the crap out of Gaza!
What should the world do about it?

At least you guys are making love not war!
But back to the thread........
Israel has a very cute Foreign Minister but Israeli planes are STILL bombing the crap out of Gaza!
What should the world do about it?
Bomb the crap back?


Nuclear holocaust = peace.

At least you guys are making love not war!
But back to the thread........
Israel has a very cute Foreign Minister but Israeli planes are STILL bombing the crap out of Gaza!
What should the world do about it?

Force Ham-ass to stop launching rockets and mortars at Israel. Simple as that.

If "the world" in unwilling or unable to do so, then stay out of the fight.

Force Ham-ass to stop launching rockets and mortars at Israel. Simple as that.
*sigh*

Can't you say Hamas or something?

Were the Palestinians in charge of an actual country, then you might have a point. But what Hamas are in charge of is the shitty bit of land the Israelis palmed off to the Palestinians, without the money to sort it out. That Hamas and Islamic Jihad are firing mortars out of it is a pain in the arse for the Israelis is true, but every Palestinian I've ever spoken to has said they just want this shit to be over - the leaders of Hamas are not going to step down because they're being funded by very wealthy Saudis, Saudi Arabia basically being the real problem country of the Middle East and all. Without convincing foreigners to stop funding them, the attacks will not stop.
If "the world" in unwilling or unable to do so, then stay out of the fight.
I don't see why Israel should be given a free hand to bomb civilians. I thought they were better than that.

*sigh*

Can't you say Hamas or something?

He thinks if he doesn't, we'll forget that he's bigoted towards peoples with "funny" sounding (non-white-christian-american) names.

Force Ham-ass to stop launching rockets and mortars at Israel. Simple as that.

That's step one. Then what?


...'cause you haven't been paying attention if you think it's just "simple as that".

*sigh*

Can't you say Hamas or something?

I can, but that would indicate I have enough respect for them to do so.


Were the Palestinians in charge of an actual country, then you might have a point. But what Hamas are in charge of is the shitty bit of land the Israelis palmed off to the Palestinians, without the money to sort it out. That Hamas and Islamic Jihad are firing mortars out of it is a pain in the arse for the Israelis is true, but every Palestinian I've ever spoken to has said they just want this shit to be over

"Actual country" or not, Ham-ass controls Gaza. Furthermore, a large percentage of the Palestinians voted for Ham-ass. They cannot now escape responsibility for their foolish decision. Ham-ass controls the territory, and the territory under their control is being used to attack Israel. That is an act of war. War means killing people and breaking things.

If the poor innocent ( :rolleyes: ) Palestinians "want this shit to be over", they can take any number of steps toward that end: leave buildings used by Ham-ass to launch rockets and mortars, demand an end to the attacks against Israel, publicly protest against Ham-ass' actions, etc. But IMO what the Palestinians really want is exactly what Ham-ass wants: the elimination of Israel.


- the leaders of Hamas are not going to step down because they're being funded by very wealthy Saudis, Saudi Arabia basically being the real problem country of the Middle East and all. Without convincing foreigners to stop funding them, the attacks will not stop.

On that point we are in agreement.

I don't see why Israel should be given a free hand to bomb civilians. I thought they were better than that.

First of all, Israel is not "bombing civilians" in the sense of deliberately targeting civilians. In that sense, they most certainly are better than Ham-ass and the rest of the terrorist trash in the area.

Second, as mentioned, if civilians want to avoid becoming casualties, they can leave buildings being used by Ham-ass. They know bloody well which ones are being so used.

Third, nobody is "giving" Israel anything. Israel is asserting its right to self-defense and has the power to do so. Power isn't "given". Power is something you take.

Third, nobody is "giving" Israel anything. Israel is asserting its right to self-defense and has the power to do so. Power isn't "given". Power is something you take.


Grrr. Internet toughguy is tough. Grrr.

Third, nobody is "giving" Israel anything. Israel is asserting its right to self-defense and has the power to do so. Power isn't "given". Power is something you take.

ORLY. So why don't you explain to me, and everyone else on Earth, your version of the history of the formation of the state of Israel?

The one that involves a taking of power, and not a giving. Go on, we'll all wait while you ignore this or try to say I'm taking your t-shirt slogans out of context.

ORLY. So why don't you explain to me, and everyone else on Earth, your version of the history of the formation of the state of Israel?

The one that involves a taking of power, and not a giving. Go on, we'll all wait while you ignore this or try to say I'm taking your t-shirt slogans out of context.

At this point (and for some time now), Israel has been a legitimately recognized nation state. Palestine is not.

End of story for the Palestinians.

As soon as they give up on the desire for a Palestinian state, all of this violence in Israel will stop.

Grrr. Internet toughguy is tough. Grrr.

Actually I shouldn't have used that without attribution. "Power is something you take" isn't my original. It was actually a quote from Jock Ewing on the old TV show Dallas. Jock had given J.R. and Bobby joint control of Ewing Oil, to see which one would do a better job. J.R. kept undercutting Bobby, so he complained to Jock that Jock had given him power. Jock replied, "I gave you nothing. Power is something you take!"

An accurate statement nonetheless.

ORLY. So why don't you explain to me, and everyone else on Earth, your version of the history of the formation of the state of Israel?

The one that involves a taking of power, and not a giving. Go on, we'll all wait while you ignore this or try to say I'm taking your t-shirt slogans out of context.

I second this.

...
"Actual country" or not, Ham-ass controls Gaza. Furthermore, a large percentage of the Palestinians voted for Ham-ass. They cannot now escape responsibility for their foolish decision. Ham-ass controls the territory, and the territory under their control is being used to attack Israel. That is an act of war. War means killing people and breaking things.

How do you know that? I highly doubt any women had the chance to vote. Many men probably did not vote, and younger people (who are a large part of the Palestinian population) probably didn't vote either. Add that to the fact that it was a pretty close election, as well as coercion from Hamas, then that argument falls. Furthermore, such violent reactions from Israel only strengthens Hamas because these sort of ideologies feed of off death and devestation.

If the poor innocent ( :rolleyes: ) Palestinians "want this shit to be over", they can take any number of steps toward that end: leave buildings used by Ham-ass to launch rockets and mortars, demand an end to the attacks against Israel, publicly protest against Ham-ass' actions, etc. But IMO what the Palestinians really want is exactly what Ham-ass wants: the elimination of Israel.

I've responded to the idea "of leaving buildings" below. Now on the demands, how do you know they're not happening now? How do you know people haven't demanded an end to the rockets? And beyond that, if they engaged in public protests, do you really think Hamas would be down with that? I highly doubt it, they would probably be killed.

First of all, Israel is not "bombing civilians" in the sense of deliberately targeting civilians. In that sense, they most certainly are better than Ham-ass and the rest of the terrorist trash in the area.

Second, as mentioned, if civilians want to avoid becoming casualties, they can leave buildings being used by Ham-ass. They know bloody well which ones are being so used. ...


It doesn't fucking matter. In the last two major conflicts (this one and Lebanon), Hamas and Hezbollah have had lower ratios of civilian/military deaths as well as having killed less civilians overall. Israel disproportionatey effects the civilians of those it targets, so your argument that it doesn't "target" them is irrelevent. Functionally, Israel is worse than "the other trash in the area".

They can leave the buildings? Where the hell will they go to? There's the Israeli wall on one side, the Egyptian wall on the other side, and a whole lot of bombing in between. Furthermore, how would they know which buildings Hamas plans to use? Should they leave their house for a week just because some idiot sent out a rocket a block down?

First of all, Israel is not "bombing civilians" in the sense of deliberately targeting civilians. In that sense, they most certainly are better than Ham-ass and the rest of the terrorist trash in the area.
Debatable. Not even Israel has tried to justify the deliberate bombing of the mosques and the University, nor the prison. And the targeting of police is another debatable point.

Second, as mentioned, if civilians want to avoid becoming casualties, they can leave buildings being used by Ham-ass. They know bloody well which ones are being so used.
Yes, it's the fault of the civilians that they live in the same city as Hamas has offices. Way to blame the victims. :rolleyes:

As soon as they give up on the desire for a Palestinian state, all of this violence in Israel will stop.
And then what?

Actually I shouldn't have used that without attribution. "Power is something you take" isn't my original. It was actually a quote from Jock Ewing on the old TV show Dallas. Jock had given J.R. and Bobby joint control of Ewing Oil, to see which one would do a better job. J.R. kept undercutting Bobby, so he complained to Jock that Jock had given him power. Jock replied, "I gave you nothing. Power is something you take!"

An accurate statement nonetheless.

Ladies and gentlemen, the New Mitanni School of Diplomacy, where you too can learn to judge the world based on lines from nighttime soap operas, play acting at Machiavelli.

How do you know that? I highly doubt any women had the chance to vote. Many men probably did not vote, and younger people (who are a large part of the Palestinian population) probably didn't vote either. Add that to the fact that it was a pretty close election, as well as coercion from Hamas, then that argument falls.

440,409 votes, according to Wiki.

Out of an estimated 3,760,000 inhabitants in the Palestinian areas. (2008 etimate (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1202246355071))

And then what?

The landgrab and apartheid can continue at an uninterrupted pace, and the Palestinians can become The New Kaffirs.

And then what?
Here's an answer

Well, um, you know, the Palestinians, you know... and the Israelis, um... you know... and they would, you know...

Has anybody seen this?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

The Israeli naval officers are lucky Cynthia McKinney didn't slap them. ;)

Has anybody seen this?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

The Israeli naval officers are lucky Cynthia McKinney didn't slap them. ;)

Check this out then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473868,00.html (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI)

Check this out then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473868,00.html (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI)

:eek:

That was actually fair and balanced! :eek:

:eek:

That was actually fair and balanced! :eek:

Mostly because it wasn't FOXNews.

Check this out then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473868,00.html (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI)

Damn you!!!

(Note to self: always check links with quoting the post.)

Here's an answer

So you don't have one, you just hope that things will get magically better after the Palestinians give up on their desire for a Palestinian state. Or that they'll simply... disappear? 3,7 million people will just go *poof*?

Next time you might actually think things through before posting, and offer up some thoughts about how and why things will change if the Palestinians just would follow your "advice".

How do you know that? I highly doubt any women had the chance to vote. Many men probably did not vote, and younger people (who are a large part of the Palestinian population) probably didn't vote either. Add that to the fact that it was a pretty close election, as well as coercion from Hamas, then that argument falls. Furthermore, such violent reactions from Israel only strengthens Hamas because these sort of ideologies feed of off death and devestation.

If it was a "close election," then a significant percentage of Palestinians in fact voted for Ham-ass. As for "coercion," I don't buy it.

As for violent reactions from Israel strengthening Ham-ass, if in fact it occurs, that just creates an even more target-rich environment. Eventually, after enough of them get whacked, the rest of them might finally get the idea through their thick skulls that they're never going to win and finally make up their minds to behave in a civilized manner, accept that Israel isn't going anywhere, and decide to make peace.

I've responded to the idea "of leaving buildings" below. Now on the demands, how do you know they're not happening now? How do you know people haven't demanded an end to the rockets?

I don't know they're not happening now. All I know is there's no evidence they're happening now. Nor have I seen any evidence that they've ever happened.

And beyond that, if they engaged in public protests, do you really think Hamas would be down with that? I highly doubt it, they would probably be killed.

Well, that puts them between the dog and the fire hydrant, doesn't it? They have the choice of massively protesting (if in fact they oppose Ham-ass, which I don't believe for a minute) and getting killed by Ham-ass -- in full public view, btw, which would do wonders for Ham-ass' public relations, but which has the possibility of forcing change -- or not doing anything and getting killed by Israel. Life's a bitch and then you die.

It doesn't fucking matter. In the last two major conflicts (this one and Lebanon), Hamas and Hezbollah have had lower ratios of civilian/military deaths as well as having killed less civilians overall. Israel disproportionatey effects the civilians of those it targets, so your argument that it doesn't "target" them is irrelevent. Functionally, Israel is worse than "the other trash in the area".

Actually it does matter. Intent always matters. What doesn't matter is the silly concept of "proportionality." If you start a war against a superior opponent, you are going to get the crap kicked out of you, and more of your people are going to die than your opponent's. If you are so concerned about preventing civilian casualties, don't start the war in the first place.

They can leave the buildings? Where the hell will they go to? There's the Israeli wall on one side, the Egyptian wall on the other side, and a whole lot of bombing in between. Furthermore, how would they know which buildings Hamas plans to use? Should they leave their house for a week just because some idiot sent out a rocket a block down?

I can give them a suggestion where to go. ;)

More seriously, I would bet that they are fully aware of which buildings Ham-ass is using, and that they could prevent them from doing so if they chose to. They're not getting any sympathy from me.

As for violent reactions from Israel strengthening Ham-ass, if in fact it occurs, that just creates an even more target-rich environment. Eventually, after enough of them get whacked, the rest of them might finally get the idea through their thick skulls that they're never going to win and finally make up their minds to behave in a civilized manner, accept that Israel isn't going anywhere, and decide to make peace.
Einstein apparently once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

Well, that puts them between the dog and the fire hydrant, doesn't it? They have the choice of massively protesting (if in fact they oppose Ham-ass, which I don't believe for a minute) and getting killed by Ham-ass -- in full public view, btw, which would do wonders for Ham-ass' public relations, but which has the possibility of forcing change -- or not doing anything and getting killed by Israel. Life's a bitch and then you die.
They've tried protesting Hamas before (http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjAzMTYxMzE0). Poor results, and no positive response from Israel either.


More seriously, I would bet that they are fully aware of which buildings Ham-ass is using, and that they could prevent them from doing so if they chose to.
So you don't have a serious suggestion as to where they should go?

They're not getting any sympathy from me.
No surprise there. A lack of humanity has been apparent from your posts for a long time.

Happy 2009, everybody. I'm off to New Zealand for 2 weeks. Hopefully the fighting in the Middle East will have abated by the time I return.

Salaam and Shalom.

As soon as they give up on the desire for a Palestinian state, all of this violence in Israel will stop.


Hehehe. Yeah.

Poor results, and no positive response from Israel either.


Are you trying to pretend that Hamas does not have the support of the Palestinian people prior to the attacks? Are you also pretending that if Israel reacted positively in any way to any protests against Hamas that it would help the cause of the protesters?

Oh - I see. you forgot the "once upon a time..." part...

Are you trying to pretend that Hamas does not have the support of the Palestinian people prior to the attacks?

So by your logic, attacking a US republican stronghold in retaliation for the Iraq was is a perfectly legitamate tactic.

Are you trying to pretend that Hamas does not have the support of the Palestinian people prior to the attacks?
Are you pretending that the Palestinians have a uniform hive-mind and that no dissent exists within their ranks?

Are you also pretending that if Israel reacted positively in any way to any protests against Hamas that it would help the cause of the protesters?
I do not discount the possibility.

Oh - I see. you forgot the "once upon a time..." part...
It's only a fairytale if you choose to ignore reality.

And you still haven't answered my question.

As soon as they give up on the desire for a Palestinian state, all of this violence in Israel will stop.
Just like America, Kosovo, Ireland, Algeria, Croatia, Bangladesh, so on and so forth.

Just like America, Kosovo, Ireland, Algeria, Croatia, Bangladesh, so on and so forth.

So actually, violence won't stop until we're all ruled by one empire?

More seriously, I would bet that they are fully aware of which buildings Ham-ass is using, and that they could prevent them from doing so if they chose to. They're not getting any sympathy from me.

Wishful thinking. I guess it's what you need to do in order to rationalize your total lack of empathy for your fellow humans.

But, what you'd prefer to believe doesn't constitute an argument.

So actually, violence won't stop until we're all ruled by one empire?
I was thinking the opposite, actually.

I think the only people who think conflicts like this are one-sided are people who listen to Rush Limbaugh. But Rush has never been involved in a war or been in a war zone.

Hamas was elected, yes. Hamas is fairly firmly entrenched in power in the Gaza Strip and it's going to be fairly to very difficult for Israel to dislodge them. I disagree that one can treat Hamas as it would a normal sovereign state because, much like in Iran, Palestine is being governed as it were a cause instead of as a nation. I am in now way pro-Hamas here. I think Hamas is rightly deigned by much of the West as a terrorist group, and the first thing one must negotiate with them is a retraction of their rejection of Israel's right to exist.

Now, should Israel have to put up with repeated rockets by the thousands being shot into its borders? Of course not...but...

Israel hasn't abided by the resolutions of the U.N. in many cases. There are reports of undeclared settlements that are prohibited by the resolutions of the U.N that are justified by Israel as "population growth." There are instances of brutality and reckless endangerment. The Palestinians feel occupied and Israel has not exactly walked softly while carrying its big stick.

What's needed is for the West to get past the age of George W. Bush and John Negroponte and realize that, yes, it needs to negotiate with Hamas. The third secretary to the 5th assistant deputy to the associate secretary of state. I'm not talking about the President of any country going. And Fatah can be used as an intermediary.

And a platform of negotiations can be discussed. And this needs to happen now because the continued loss of INNOCENT life is totally unacceptable. You cannot punish as a whole 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza because 100 of them are firing rockets into Israel and the rest fail to overthrow the regime. The world doesn't work like that anymore. It's not 1600 AD.

What needs to happen first for that to happen? Israel needs to start being more helpful internationally and announce the conditions under which they will agree to a ceasefire instead of merely rejecting ceasefire proposals that are brought to it by France. Israel needs to stop killing people, because that's only making a real resolution harder for everybody.

At this point (and for some time now), Israel has been a legitimately recognized nation state. Palestine is not.

End of story for the Palestinians.

As soon as they give up on the desire for a Palestinian state, all of this violence in Israel will stop.
Only because Palestinians have no international lobby and superpower to protect them. And that Israel will ever stop hating Palestinians is doubtful, regardless what Palestinians desire. Zionism is still alive very much, and it is as radical and blood thirsty as ever. The Jewification of the West Bank is continuing permanently.

It's not 1600 AD.Jewish understanding of the world and humanity is one of 1600 BC.
...

Only because Palestinians have no international lobby and superpower to protect them. And that Israel will ever stop hating Palestinians is doubtful, regardless what Palestinians desire. Zionism is still alive very much, and it is as radical and blood thirsty as ever. The Jewification of the West Bank is continuing permanently.

Jewish understanding of the world and humanity is one of 1600 BC.
...

That's nice. Channeling Goebbels, are we?

That's nice. Channeling Goebbels, are we?Judaism has been a fucked up ideology long before anybody like Goebbels came along. Maybe Goebbels even got some ideas from Judaism, you know "chosen people" and all that shit.

Judaism has been a fucked up ideology long before anybody like Goebbels came along. Maybe Goebbels even got some ideas from Judaism, you know "chosen people" and all that shit.

Are you just simply butthurt about not being part of the 'chosen people'?

Cut it out.

This discussion is not about ideologies or religions. Take those to a separate thread.

HappyLesbians, trolling, warned.

The word "jewification" in this context is trolling. It's more offensive than, say, "Christianisation" or "Islamisation" would be, because it was and is used in (English translations of) Nazi propaganda. Also, the "-ification" ending often denotes contempt (eg, "USification" vs "Americanisation").

Hydesland, flamebait, warned.

Cut it out.

This discussion is not about ideologies or religions. Take those to a separate thread. Everything that a state does is about ideology. Especially in the case of Israel which exists solely because of a religious ideology of being in a certain proximity to god and thus being better than other humans and deserving the land promised to them by their deity, regardless of the Arabs that have lived there for at least the past 1500 years. Judaism and Zionism are racist ideologies and Israel is still the Jewish and Zionist state. So don't tell me Israeli politics (including the current events in Gaza) aren't about ideology.

The word "jewification" in this context is trolling. It's more offensive than, say, "Christianisation" or "Islamisation" would be, because it was and is used in (English translations of) Nazi propaganda. Also, the "-ification" ending often denotes contempt (eg, "USification" vs "Americanisation").But that what is going on. Israel is setting up new settlements in the West Bank to change its population to make it more Jewish. That is a evil thing for which contempt is justified. After all, the settlers they send in there are the most orthodox and religiously driven people they could find. Israel really is at war with the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank.

Everything that a state does is about ideology. <snip>So don't tell me Israeli politics (including the current events in Gaza) aren't about ideology.

I'm not. I'm telling you not to drag this thread off-topic with a generalised discussion of why Israel exists. Interesting though that may be, this thread is specifically about the current actions in Gaza.

But that what is going on. Israel is setting up new settlements in the West Bank to change its population to make it more Jewish. That is a evil thing for which contempt is justified. After all, the settlers they send in there are the most orthodox and religiously driven people they could find. Israel really is at war with the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank.

I've no mod-type problems with this part of your post. You're welcome to argue with other posters about your opinions. You're not welcome to express them in a way that insults other posters, collectively or individually, or draws them into a response in which they insult you. Those activities are known as flaming, trolling and flamebaiting, and they're illegal on this forum. The word "Jewification" was what you were warned for, not the concept.

Turning now to more positive developments, Israel has now eliminated one of Ham-ass’ big-shots.

The following is posted on FOXNews.com. Due to graphic content, I haven’t given the actual link. Those interested can check it out easily enough:


Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on the home of a Hamas strongman Thursday, killing him along with two wives and four children in the first attack on the top leadership of Gaza's rulers. As the aerial bombardment escalated, the army said it was also poised to launch a ground invasion. Israel also appeared to be sounding out a possible diplomatic exit from the 6-day-old military offensive against Hamas by demanding international monitors as a key term of any future truce.

The bombing targeted 49-year-old Nizar Rayan, ranked among Hamas' top five decision-makers in Gaza. His four-story apartment building crashed to the ground, sending a thick plume of smoke into the air and heavily damaging neighboring buildings. It killed Rayan and 11 others, including two of his four wives and four of his 12 children, Palestinian health officials said. The Muslim faith allows men to have up to four wives.

Israel has made clear that no one in Hamas is immune in this offensive, and the strike that flattened Rayan's apartment building in the northern town of Jebaliya drove that message home.

. . . .
"We are trying to hit everybody who is a leader of the organization, and today we hit one of their leaders," Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said in a television interview.

Hamas leaders went into hiding before Israel launched the offensive on Saturday, but Rayan was known for openly defying Israel, and the military said he had an tunnel under his house that could serve as an escape route for Hamas terrorists.

Israeli military officials reportedly warned members of Rayan's family not to stay in the home Thursday but they refused, saying they were human shields.

(Emphasis added.)



Strangely, Ham-ass doesn’t seem to accord Israelis the came courtesy.


A professor of Islamic law, Rayan was closely tied to Hamas' military wing and was respected in Gaza for donning combat fatigues and personally participating in clashes against Israeli forces. He sent one of his sons on an October 2001 suicide mission that killed two Israeli settlers in Gaza.

(Emphasis added.)



Obviously he cared about the rest of his family as much as he cared about his son.

Defense officials said a one-ton bomb was used to attack Rayan's home, and that weapons stored inside set off secondary explosions. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to the media.

. . . .

Israel and Egypt blockaded Gaza after Hamas violently seized control of the territory in June 2007, and have cracked open their borders only to let in limited amounts of humanitarian aid.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and many other Western nations. From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks against Israeli targets.

So, it's now one down, four to go.