NationStates Jolt Archive

An alternative scenario - Israel preemptively nukes out Palestine before the nukes come on-line, reasoning that the biggest bully boy (HAMAS) is serious about their promise to destroy Israel "by any means necessary".

Which results in a shitstorm of all sorts. The Arab World finally boils over and erupts in unison for the first time in ages, the Western World reaches the breaking point to where not even the United States can shelter it from the consequences, and Christian Zionists sinfully cream in their pants as it looks like The Second Coming is going to be on.

An alternative scenario - Israel preemptively nukes out Palestine before the nukes come on-line, reasoning that the biggest bully boy (HAMAS) is serious about their promise to destroy Israel "by any means necessary".

Which is why if you want to give them beforehand, you do it in all haste, guaranteeing that any pre-emptive strike will result in mutually assured destruction.

Hamas leadership would never risk their personal backsides by participating in open conflict while they have their pawns to do it for them, and nuclear weapons guarantees that everyone is a participant.

A pre-emptive nuclear strike would also drive the neighboring countries, even the United States best friend, Saudi Arabia, into a crash course nuclear program in order to bring the balance of power to a more level field. Israel, believing itself invincible, would probably try to make more pre-emptive strikes then, resulting in it's eventual destruction as between an ally in the region and a provider of strategic resources, Israel comes up a poor second in the US friends list.

As I said, everyone wins, or everyone dies. Whichever happens, peace reigns.

Which results in a shitstorm of all sorts. The Arab World finally boils over and erupts in unison for the first time in ages, the Western World reaches the breaking point to where not even the United States can shelter it from the consequences, and Christian Zionists sinfully cream in their pants as it looks like The Second Coming is going to be on.And a lot of people wind up dead over a little strip of land that's the size of, what, New Jersey?

Hamas leadership would never risk their personal backsides by participating in open conflict while they have their pawns to do it for them, and nuclear weapons guarantees that everyone is a participant.



HERE is the problem. The HAMAS leadership need not be anywhere near Palestine to let fly.

And they've already proven they don't give a flying fuck about the Palestinian people.

Because even throwing rocks, they still get the shit blown out of them by Israeli bullets, bombs and missiles in retaliation.

What struck me about it is what poor weapons the Qassam rockets are. Even a mortar is better targetted, and still gives a fair chance of packing up and hiding before retaliation comes in.

The militants obviously have limited resources. If they choose to spend those resources building rockets that have one chance in two hundred of killing a single person, Israel should count itself lucky.

HERE is the problem. The HAMAS leadership need not be anywhere near Palestine to let fly.

And they've already proven they don't give a flying fuck about the Palestinian people.

The Hamas leadership is also in favor of being leaders. Letting fly with nuclear arms would put an end to their power base permanently.

Besides, it does not need to be Hamas does it? I'm quite certain the CIA has a long list of people in Palestine who would be capable leaders and are willing to dicker peace. Of course whether they want such people to be the leaders, well, that's a different story.

The Hamas leadership is also in favor of being leaders. Letting fly with nuclear arms would put an end to their power base permanently.

Besides, it does not need to be Hamas does it? I'm quite certain the CIA has a long list of people in Palestine who would be capable leaders and are willing to dicker peace. Of course whether they want such people to be the leaders, well, that's a different story.

Perhaps. But they'd need to be installed as leaders first, and HAMAS isn't just going to sit back and let that happen.

What struck me about it is what poor weapons the Qassam rockets are. Even a mortar is better targetted, and still gives a fair chance of packing up and hiding before retaliation comes in.

The militants obviously have limited resources. If they choose to spend those resources building rockets that have one chance in two hundred of killing a single person, Israel should count itself lucky.

What actual support the militants get are scant and measly in comparison to Israel's billion dollars subsidy from the United States on top of their own military-industrial complex. It's just enough to make them a nuisance that the Israelis still feel obliged to blow the shit out of along with civilians minding their own business.

Yep. If we use a Magic analogy for the situation, the Palestinian militants are the kids who just bought a starter deck, while Israel are all the Pro Tour guys who invest heavily in single rares and uncommons from various sources for their tournament-grade decks. And the Pro Tour guys are complaining that the kids with the starter decks are threatening to knock them out of the finals.

Perhaps. But they'd need to be installed as leaders first, and HAMAS isn't just going to sit back and let that happen.

Any group or organization capable of getting their hands on sufficient strategic class nuclear weapons to match Israel is more than capable of providing the financial and military support necessary to rise to power in Palestine as an afterthought, regardless of what Hamas desires.

Any group or organization capable of getting their hands on sufficient strategic class nuclear weapons to match Israel is more than capable of providing the financial and military support necessary to rise to power in Palestine as an afterthought, regardless of what Hamas desires.

Hang on, it was you who suggested that the Nuke Fairy should just give them sufficient strategic class nuclear weapons to match Israel. Since that's entirely arbitrary, it says nothing about their actual capacity to rise to power.

*shrug*
As usual, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Well, it was Wilgrove's idea ... so perhaps you just like the challenge of defending a ridiculous idea.

Hang on, it was you who suggested that the Nuke Fairy should just give them sufficient strategic class nuclear weapons to match Israel. Since that's entirely arbitrary, it says nothing about their actual capacity to rise to power.

*shrug*
As usual, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Well, it was Wilgrove's idea ... so perhaps you just like the challenge of defending a ridiculous idea.

Well here's some food for thought. Hamas is currently the de facto ruler of Palestine, or at least what parts of it Israel doesn't bomb regularly. But at the same, Hamas is for better or worse, stuck in Palestine. The leadership can't go anywhere. As much as people like to talk about how terrorists are all filled with martyr spirit, it's hardly true of the people who spent the majority of their efforts consolidating their power over the means of controlling the would be martyrs.

That means giving them parity of destructive power to Israel also puts them squarely in the same crosshairs, since there's nothing that is likely to survive the retaliation.

Furthermore, as pointed out before, Israel has talked about the Samson option, the strategic nuclear bombing of its neighbors and maybe even Europe in the event of imminent destruction. By quickly elevating the Palestinian capability of causing said destruction, and the Samson option as a consequence, the other nations will have much, much, more incentive to ensure that peace actually works between the two.

It's nuclear blackmail, and it seems to work quite well on the international stage. Only power is respected in realpolitik, and nuclear power is the most tangible, immediate, form of power.

Of course though, the Magical Nuke Fairy option is the idea. Details must be filled out if it's supposed to have any chance of being implemented.

It's all One Imaginary Friend.

Basically they can't decide if Cloister wore a Blue Hat or a Red one.

Saddest thing was the cardboard hat was supposed to be green.

Maybe if Palestinians stopped electing HAMAS leaders into their government...

Not a believer in democracy then?

We've got this thread.

And a lot of people wind up dead over a little strip of land that's the size of, what, New Jersey?The Gaza Strip measures 40 by 10 kilometers, that is an area only as big as the combined sizes of Queens and Brooklyn.

Easily done. Almost any article about casualties in the conflict read like this but give more details but im lazy "Most of the Palestinians killed since Saturday were members of Hamas security forces but the number included at least 64 civilians, according to U.N. figures."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/30/world/main4691655.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4691655

Short of me sending you their names and tax forms listing occupations, youll have to accept the general truth of the matter.

Updated:
At least 25 percent of Palestinians killed during Israel's massive offensive in the Gaza Strip have been civilians, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees said on Wednesday.

"A minimum of 25 percent of all those killed are civilians and it may well be far higher," UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness told AFP.

Since the start of the Israeli offensive on Saturday at least 390 Palestinians have been killed and another 1,900 wounded, according to Gaza medics. At least 42 of those killed have been children, they say.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jU4abbllwzNEyEC-kg7Wtd5RZrow

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency said an Israeli missile targeted police officers near a Gaza government building across the street from a U.N. training center Monday. Eight students, ages 18 to 20, were killed awaiting a U.N. bus to take them home and 19 others were injured in the strike.

[...]

"The horrific death toll risks growing due to the unavailability of adequate medical care for the hundreds of injured," Amnesty International said in a statement.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/civilian-death-toll-gaza-raises/story.aspx?guid=%7B17CD49A2-97B4-476B-9A0F-71AC40E202E7%7D&dist=msr_1

Updated:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jU4abbllwzNEyEC-kg7Wtd5RZrow


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/civilian-death-toll-gaza-raises/story.aspx?guid=%7B17CD49A2-97B4-476B-9A0F-71AC40E202E7%7D&dist=msr_1Israel has been morally bankrupt since 1948. What do you expect really?

The problem is, when you say things like "25% of those killed were civilians" ...ok. But the problem is, especially when you deal with the middle east, is that just because they're civilians doesn't mean they're innocent. Bin Laden is a civilian. The people who flew the planes on 9/11 were civilians. All the word "civilian" means is that they're not officially connected with their government's armed forces.

But in the part of the world where a lot of violence is carried out by paramilitary terrorists and extremists, the fact that they're civilians...doesn't mean much. I care about innocent lives lost. A dead civilian terrorist doesn't concern me much

Israel has been morally bankrupt since 1948. What do you expect really?

I disagree - I don't think Israel are "morally bankrupt" - but I do expect more from them.

The problem is, when you say things like "25% of those killed were civilians" ...ok. But the problem is, especially when you deal with the middle east, is that just because they're civilians doesn't mean they're innocent. Bin Laden is a civilian. The people who flew the planes on 9/11 were civilians. All the word "civilian" means is that they're not officially connected with their government's armed forces.

But in the part of the world where a lot of violence is carried out by paramilitary terrorists and extremists, the fact that they're civilians...doesn't mean much. I care about innocent lives lost. A dead civilian terrorist doesn't concern me much

As I've said before, it seems like the UNRWA term "civilian" here means "not a member of Hamas". But it is unclear, I agree.

Edit: That said, what is clear is that they say that 10% of the casualties are children.

Edit: That said, what is clear is that they say that 10% of the casualties are children.

while certainly tragic, from a purely academic standpoing, I wonder if that's unusually high for military action of this type?

And stop picturing me in a dress.

And stop picturing me in a dress.

I'm sorry, what?

And stop picturing me in a dress.

But it's so much fun!

Edit: That said, what is clear is that they say that 10% of the casualties are children.

If terrorists and/or warseeking governments surround valid military targets (including people) with civilians and children.. whose fault is it that they die ? The one who bombs, the parents who did not bring the kids to safety while knowing the risks of staying or the "targets" for staying so close to innocents ?

Perhaps all are to blame.

And stop picturing me in a dress.

*grumbles*

If terrorists and/or warseeking governments surround valid military targets (including people) with civilians and children.. whose fault is it that they die ? The one who bombs, the parents who did not bring the kids to safety while knowing the risks of staying or the "targets" for staying so close to innocents ?

Perhaps all are to blame.

I'm really wondering where people expect the Palestinian civilians to actually go because I see a bit too much of this "well the civilians stayed near the terrorists, it's their fault they died."

I'm really wondering where people expect the Palestinian civilians to actually go because I see a bit too much of this "well the civilians stayed near the terrorists, it's their fault they died."

Note I suggested to share the blame.
And where they should go ? Well, to the safe facilities the nice Hamas government had prepared when they started to lob missiles at Israel, knowing full well that Israel would eventually strike back.

Oh wait - they neglected to do that. Well then, slightly less blame to parents, slightly more to Hamas, equal amount as before to Israel.

Then again, the gaza strip is tiny. Surely people there have family outside.

I'm really wondering where people expect the Palestinian civilians to actually go because I see a bit too much of this "well the civilians stayed near the terrorists, it's their fault they died."

It's a bit odd really. First it was being in the same building as the terrorists that put the onus on the terrorists. Now it's in the same neighborhood. Before long, it'll be that they're in the same country, or maybe the same planet.

No claims of slippery slope fallacy please. It's already happening, so it's not a fallacy.

It's a bit odd really. First it was being in the same building as the terrorists that put the onus on the terrorists. Now it's in the same neighborhood. Before long, it'll be that they're in the same country, or maybe the same planet.

No claims of slippery slope fallacy please. It's already happening, so it's not a fallacy.

Intruiging. Both of you are deliberately changing the words of the statement made.
Why ?

while certainly tragic, from a purely academic standpoing, I wonder if that's unusually high for military action of this type?

And stop picturing me in a dress.

Considering that it's estimated that more than 50% of the inhabitants on the Gaza strip is below 18 years old and count as "children", I would not say that. I'm honestly more concerned about the general civilian death toll than the particular one for children (allthough one could argue that even 10% is too many, I will only, in this post, say that it's regrettable. I see no indication that Israel is deliberately targeting children.)


And the wig I'm picturing you in is more scary than the dress! :eek2:

If terrorists and/or warseeking governments surround valid military targets (including people) with civilians and children.. whose fault is it that they die ? The one who bombs, the parents who did not bring the kids to safety while knowing the risks of staying or the "targets" for staying so close to innocents ?

Perhaps all are to blame.

I would say that Israel and Hamas share the blame. I can't really fault the parents who try to keep their children out of harms way. Many of them have no place to go, and nothing to do to protect their children.

Intruiging. Both of you are deliberately changing the words of the statement made.
Why ?

No, it's a factual statement. Those phone calls to random people in Palestine telling them that if their neighbor is a terrorist or if there are weapons next door, or even better, in that house, they can expect 500 pounds of explosives delivered to their doorstep via missile already shows the mentality of expanding the target zone and blaming it all on whoever the target was. In fact, some of the posters here even agree with the principle behind the phone calls it seems, so we have it on record both on NSG and in the Middle East.

Intruiging. Both of you are deliberately changing the words of the statement made.
Why ?

I don't think either are focusing on your statement, insomuch as they were focusing on the overall argument of "shouldn't be near them".

I don't think either are focusing on your statement, insomuch as they were focusing on the overall argument of "shouldn't be near them".

I won't put the fault on those who by happenstance and the inability to leave fall victim merely because of being in proximity to terrorists.

I fault the terrorists for deliberately and maliciously putting innocent lives at risk. It's one thing to attack a country due to a perceived grievance. It's wholy another to put innocent lives at risk, for the specific purpose of getting them killed as a propaganda tool.

And the wig I'm picturing you in is more scary than the dress! :eek2:

shut up, you like it

No, it's a factual statement. Those phone calls to random people in Palestine telling them that if their neighbor is a terrorist or if there are weapons next door, or even better, in that house, they can expect 500 pounds of explosives delivered to their doorstep via missile already shows the mentality of expanding the target zone and blaming it all on whoever the target was. In fact, some of the posters here even agree with the principle behind the phone calls it seems, so we have it on record both on NSG and in the Middle East.

Is a warning that someone in your vicinity is a suspected terrorist and that the proximity of your shack could get you and your family of 12 killed unless you move your ill unemployed self and your starving family out of the region you are prevented from leaving enough warning to justify collateral damage?

I won't put the fault on those who by happenstance and the inability to leave fall victim merely because of being in proximity to terrorists.

I fault the terrorists for deliberately and maliciously putting innocent lives at risk. It's one thing to attack a country due to a perceived grievance. It's wholy another to put innocent lives at risk, for the specific purpose of getting them killed as a propaganda tool.

This begs the question. What exactly is putting innocent lives at risk? By Geneva conventions, it seems when you are in the same building as them. I could understand that. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, as the strikes are less discriminatory in terms of surrounding damage, as well as what the bomb threats indicate.

Furthermore, if you can understand attacks on a country due to a perceived grievance, where would the Palestinian militants make their attack from, boxed in as they are in a territory smaller than some metropolitan cities?

Is a warning that someone in your vicinity is a suspected terrorist and that the proximity of your shack could get you and your family of 12 killed unless you move your ill unemployed self and your starving family out of the region you are prevented from leaving enough warning to justify collateral damage?

About as much as a prison warden informing the inmates that due to disturbances in one cell, he will be gassing the entire block with Zyklon-B.

About as much as a prison warden informing the inmates that due to disturbances in one cell, he will be gassing the entire block with Zyklon-B.

No, when a cell has a problem, they lock down the entire block to prevent any further shenanigans. If the block starts to riot out come the rubber bullets. If that doesnt work out come the real bullets. Whats the big mystery here?

Im slightly confused so let me review. Israel doesnt make a phone call ahead of time to a potential target = evil genocidal intentions. ALSO Israel making phone calls in advance to limit harm (which seems to be working in a limited sense)= evil genocidal intentions. Ok then. Damned if you do Damned if you dont as my mother used to say.

Is a warning that someone in your vicinity is a suspected terrorist and that the proximity of your shack could get you and your family of 12 killed unless you move your ill unemployed self and your starving family out of the region you are prevented from leaving enough warning to justify collateral damage?

Depends. Is the terrorist your dad ;) ?

About as much as a prison warden informing the inmates that due to disturbances in one cell, he will be gassing the entire block with Zyklon-B.

During family visiting day. :p

No, when a cell has a problem, they lock down the entire block to prevent any further shenanigans. If the block starts to riot out come the rubber bullets. If that doesnt work out come the real bullets. Whats the big mystery here?


Except what is happening in the Middle East bears no resemblance to your example, and is closer to mine. Mass punishments and such.


Im slightly confused so let me review. Israel doesnt make a phone call ahead of time to a potential target = evil genocidal intentions. ALSO Israel making phone calls in advance to limit harm (which seems to be working in a limited sense)= evil genocidal intentions. Ok then.

You're not getting the point, maybe deliberately, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The phone calls are simply an indicator of Isreal's (assuming the calls originated from them), policy. Geneva conventions put human shields and the onus of them on the user, but by common interpretation, it does not apply if you aren't in the same building.

Clearly that is not the case here.

The phone calls are simply a sign of the problem at hand, which is that Israel now considers being in the same neighborhood as their target now makes it the target's fault if innocents die when they bomb the area.

Israel after all has shown a long history of mass punishments of innocents simply because they lived in the same region of supposed terrorist. Here they are simply pushing up their punishments to murder of uninvolved innocents, and again blaming the militants for it.

Tell me. If Israel leveled all of Gaza Strip, executed every man, woman and child, on the grounds that "they were human shields by Hamas", would you still agree with that idea? Because slowly but surely, Israel is going that way. They have begun the first steps, and I see no reason why they would stop unless forced to.

Honestly, I've had enough. Give everybody a week to leave, then glass the whole thing over or put a dome over it. A stupid little hunk of geography like that should not be the cause of so much controversy and tension.

Tell me. If Israel leveled all of Gaza Strip, executed every man, woman and child, on the grounds that "they were human shields by Hamas", would you still agree with that idea?

The claim that they are human shields that willingly took the risk has some merit if they moved there relatively recently. In the last few decades for instance.

So... what should Israel do ? Give the land they stole back ? Do nothing at all ? Or... ?

Tell me. If Israel leveled all of Gaza Strip, executed every man, woman and child, on the grounds that "they were human shields by Hamas", would you still agree with that idea? Because slowly but surely, Israel is going that way. They have begun the first steps, and I see no reason why they would stop unless forced to.

Your example is ridiculous and you are the one not getting the point. If Israel killed every man woman and child of course it wouldnt be true. However they ARNT doing this nor do they remotely WANT TO do this nor do they have even the slightest intention of doing any of the above. The very low ratio of civilian deaths(considering indeed how dense the city is) to Hamas deaths is about as proof positive as you can get to show exactly what Israelis intentions are. If Israel wanted to kill civilians they could kill tens of thousands in mere hours if they so desired. Your being intentionally obtuse assigning evil intentions while there is NO factual evidence to support your position when in fact the casualty figures and target list show quite clearly that Israel is discriminating its targets very carefully considering the theater its working in.

The US killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis during the course of two wars in Iraq, does this mean that the US wants the entire genocide of the Iraqi people? Using your logic the answer would be yes. But the real answer is of course not and its the EXACT same situation with Israel. The. Exact. Same. Thing.

shut up, you like it

...fishnet stockings and a cat suit, suddenly? Aw fuck, it's getting worse! :(

This begs the question. What exactly is putting innocent lives at risk? By Geneva conventions, it seems when you are in the same building as them. I could understand that.

But doesn't that just cover direct retaliation? I mean, if they target Hamas members that aren't actively participating in the hostilities at this point, is that OK under Geneva to bomb a civilian building, or a mosque? Is it OK to bomb a residential area to get at the political leadership?

I'm just asking, and I'm not in the mood to examine it closer myself.

I won't put the fault on those who by happenstance and the inability to leave fall victim merely because of being in proximity to terrorists.

I fault the terrorists for deliberately and maliciously putting innocent lives at risk. It's one thing to attack a country due to a perceived grievance. It's wholy another to put innocent lives at risk, for the specific purpose of getting them killed as a propaganda tool.

I would agree. I would also equate on a level of moral responsibility, the callous failure of the other actor [especially a State] to take the necessary precautions, or indeed take effective measures to minimise civilian loss of life, as reprehensible.

To me, both are as bad as each other.

The claim that they are human shields that willingly took the risk has some merit if they moved there relatively recently. In the last few decades for instance.

So... what should Israel do ? Give the land they stole back ? Do nothing at all ? Or... ?

At this point, Israel has no motivation to do anything to change the status quo. The rockets do no significant harm, but are convenient rallying points for any hardliner party who needs something to cover their corruption or utter retardism in office. Conducting bombing raids now and again raises their support among the radicals, helps shut down the moderates with fear mongering, and are convenient ways of channeling public attention away from themselves.

I would not trust Israel to do anything more than I would trust the average politician or radical.

This is why I've advocated a parity of strength solution. When it becomes clear that the status quo can no longer be maintained, and that doing so means utter annihilation for all sides, they will change, out of self preservation if nothing else.

Your example is ridiculous and you are the one not getting the point.

You say this, but in the same breath completely ignore the point, going instead by the same tired talking points that have been bandied about for years.

It's not about Israel's capacity for genocide. It's not about their desire to commit it either. It's the basic fact that they are loosening the standards of what makes for a human shield, expanding the target zones while blaming the target, even if they aren't even in the same building, something that is happening with increasingly lax ideas of what makes a human shield no matter how you try to twist or squirm.

Before, it was being in the same building, now it's being in the same neighborhood. The level of collateral destruction per target is increasing and has been over the years. This is basic fact.

You can try and call it "low civilian casualty count", but it won't make the facts go away.

The complete destruction example is simply the end result if things do not change. It won't be because they want to kill all the Palestinians. It will be because they happen to be "human shields".

...fishnet stockings and a cat suit, suddenly? Aw fuck, it's getting worse! :(

god damn it I do not own a cat suit! I'm at work for chrissake!

god damn it I do not own a cat suit! I'm at work for chrissake!

Great.

Now I've an image of you working at your desk in a catsuit.

Oye. *sigh* :(

But doesn't that just cover direct retaliation? I mean, if they target Hamas members that aren't actively participating in the hostilities at this point, is that OK under Geneva to bomb a civilian building, or a mosque? Is it OK to bomb a residential area to get at the political leadership?

I'm just asking, and I'm not in the mood to examine it closer myself.

Generally, it does cover direct retaliation, yes. As for bombing a residential area to get at political leadership not actively involved in activities that can be construed to be an attack, that's a very murky area, to which I suspect the answer is no, else the White House would be fair game every time CIA operatives went abroad.

It's not about Israel's capacity for genocide. It's not about their desire to commit it either. It's the basic fact that they are loosening the standards of what makes for a human shield, expanding the target zones while blaming the target, even if they aren't even in the same building, something that is happening with increasingly lax ideas of what makes a human shield no matter how you try to twist or squirm.

Before, it was being in the same building, now it's being in the same neighborhood. The level of collateral destruction per target is increasing and has been over the years. This is basic fact.

You can try and call it "low civilian casualty count", but it won't make the facts go away.



If im missing the point then please explain the odd contradiction in your logic that Israel is supposedly expanding thier target zones yet the facts show killing LESS civilians. You cant have both.


And you didnt answer my other question. The US has unquestionably killed many magnitudes more innocent Iraqi civilians,in a much larger and more open area i might add, is the US also seeking the genocide of all Iraqis using your consistent logic? Is every Iraqi going to be killed and called a human shield too? Certainly the US is alot closer to fufilling that goal than Israel is right?

god damn it I do not own a cat suit! I'm at work for chrissake!

Do you own a cat suit when you're at home? Can I borrow it? :tongue:

god damn it I do not own a cat suit! I'm at work for chrissake!

I'm sure you can rent one on the way home. :p

Also, unlike the situation this thread is concerned about, in this instance all blame for any misunderstanings (deliberate or not) lie with Poli. Do with that information what you wish http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

I'm sure you can rent one on the way home. :p

Also, unlike the situation this thread is concerned about, in this instance all blame for any misunderstanings (deliberate or not) lie with Poli. Do with that information what you wish http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

...are you trying to get me in trouble? EVIL LAWYER CONSPIRACY!

...are you trying to get me in trouble? EVIL LAWYER CONSPIRACY!

I plead the fifth... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-hehe.gif

I plead the fifth... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-hehe.gif

For some reason im always disapointed when i click on a link and its another version of a smiley face. I always think its going to be something cool.

Is a warning that someone in your vicinity is a suspected terrorist and that the proximity of your shack could get you and your family of 12 killed unless you move your ill unemployed self and your starving family out of the region you are prevented from leaving enough warning to justify collateral damage?
Clear, that's what happens in a civilized country. If somebody next door is a suspected terrorist your house gets bombed or bulldozed. The police or military should try that once in a London suburb.

I plead the fifth... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-hehe.gif

You don't even have a fifth to plead over in Viking-land! Or, rather, you probably have a fifth, but it probably says something totally different! Hmph. :tongue:

If im missing the point then please explain the odd contradiction in your logic that Israel is supposedly expanding thier target zones yet the facts show killing LESS civilians. You cant have both.

Less civilians compared to what? The amount of Hamas members dead? That's faulty logic at best. Especially if you can't show that there has been a decrease in innocents dead the last time Israel had a major air offensive.

The phone calls, and the cases of unrelated people being killed while Israel and their supporters still use the excuse of "human shields" to give the actions free pass, show the hardening mentality that is being adopted.


And you didnt answer my other question.


Because it's a red herring. You could burn an entire city and it's inhabitants to the ground and still avoid the label of genocide simply because killing them was "collateral damage". Israel need not make genocide it's policy in order to carry out extermination of the Palestinian population. Their wholesale death will be a consequence rather than an objective.

This is not happening now, in case you think that's what I'm saying, but the first steps have already begun.

And of course, the sizable radical portion of Israel's population who do want the Palestinians exterminated does not help.

Clear, that's what happens in a civilized country. If somebody next door is a suspected terrorist your house gets bombed or bulldozed. The police or military should try that once in a London suburb.

The Israelis tried to drive soldiers into Gaza, knock on doors, have instant mini trials, considerately wrap the militants in plastic wrap so they dont make the neighborhood messy when they explode, then plant charges in the house to make it implode perfectly in on itself not even causing neighbors to cough from dust and no innocent civilian was ever hurt and everyone lived happily ever after. The End.

The Israelis tried to drive soldiers into Gaza, knock on doors, have instant mini trials, wrap the militants in plastic wrap so they dont make the neighborhood messy when they explode, then plant charges in the house to make it implode perfectly in on itself not even causing neighbors to cough from dust and no innocent civilian was ever hurt and everyone lived happily ever after. The End.

Or they could arrest them and have real trials. .... Nah. :p

Or they could arrest them and have real trials. .... Nah. :p

No good cause then Palestinains will kidnap one soldier and want 5000 prisoners released in trade. That seems to be about the going rate.

No good cause then Palestinains will kidnap one soldier and want 5000 prisoners released in trade. That seems to be about the going rate.

Arrest the kidnappers.

Here's the part I don't get: The Israelis seem to know the militant's routines and whereabouts, at least to within the blast radius of helicopter rockets. Why can't they capture them?

Arrest the kidnappers.

Here's the part I don't get: The Israelis seem to know the militant's routines and whereabouts, at least to within the blast radius of helicopter rockets. Why can't they capture them?
Because ice cream has no bones.

Arrest the kidnappers.

Here's the part I don't get: The Israelis seem to know the militant's routines and whereabouts, at least to within the blast radius of helicopter rockets. Why can't they capture them?

They simply dont know who/where they are. If Israel knew where Cpl.Gilad Shalit was being held i assure you there would be an assault team on the ground there within minutes.

No good cause then Palestinains will kidnap one soldier and want 5000 prisoners released in trade. That seems to be about the going rate.
Gilad Shalit is still being held, and I don't see where you get your number from.

And besides, Israel still has 691 Palestinians being held in 'administrative detention' they could release...

Because ice cream has no bones.

Aha! The old boneless ice cream ploy. I should have known. :p

You don't even have a fifth to plead over in Viking-land! Or, rather, you probably have a fifth, but it probably says something totally different! Hmph. :tongue:

Our fifth is surprisingly cool, actually! :wink:

They simply dont know who/where they are. If Israel knew where Cpl.Gilad Shalit was being held i assure you there would be an assault team on the ground there within minutes.

So what exactly are they targeting?

Gilad Shalit is still being held, and I don't see where you get your number from.

And besides, Israel still has 691 Palestinians being held in 'administrative detention' they could release...

The 5000 was an exaggeration but just a few eye opening snippets..

"In exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, missing since October 2000, and one Israeli businessman, abducted in October 2000 under questionable circumstances, Israel released more than 430 Arab prisoners on January 29, 2004."

"In 1985, Israel freed 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon"

So what exactly are they targeting?

Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip have pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes

An Israeli air strike on Monday destroyed the Gaza Strip home of a top commander in Hamas' armed wing

Later that night, Israeli aircraft dropped at least 16 bombs on five Hamas government buildings, destroying them,

Earlier Monday, Four Islamic Jihad members, including senior commander Ziad Abu-Tir, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern Gaza Strip.

Powerful airstrikes target government buildings, including office of Hamas PM; smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border also hit;

"In exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, missing since October 2000, and one Israeli businessman, abducted in October 2000 under questionable circumstances, Israel released more than 430 Arab prisoners on January 29, 2004."


This shows an exchange rate of 107.5 Arabs to 1 dead Israeli.


"In 1985, Israel freed 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon"

and this shows a rate of 383.3 Lebanese to 1 Israeli.

Clearly the Israelis do not believe that all human lives are equal.

They simply dont know who/where they are. If Israel knew where Cpl.Gilad Shalit was being held i assure you there would be an assault team on the ground there within minutes.
So instead, they shoot missiles indiscriminately?

So instead, they shoot missiles indiscriminately?

I listed a bunch of targets 2 posts above me as specifically as humanly possible what more do you want from me? :P

Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip have pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes

An Israeli air strike on Monday destroyed the Gaza Strip home of a top commander in Hamas' armed wing

Later that night, Israeli aircraft dropped at least 16 bombs on five Hamas government buildings, destroying them,

Earlier Monday, Four Islamic Jihad members, including senior commander Ziad Abu-Tir, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern Gaza Strip.

Powerful airstrikes target government buildings, including office of Hamas PM; smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border also hit;

The point that I'm trying to make is that if they know where the bad guys are, go get them and bring them to justice. I don't see any moral difference between targeting buildings instead of suspects and launching rockets in the general direction of where the enemy lives.

The point that I'm trying to make is that if they know where the bad guys are, go get them and bring them to justice. I don't see any moral difference between targeting buildings instead of suspects and launching rockets in the general direction of where the enemy lives.

So your supporting an Israeli ground invasion and occupation in order to make these arrests possible?

So your supporting an Israeli ground invasion and occupation in order to make these arrests possible?

It's already invaded and occupied. Just because the forces are around the perimeter instead of on every street corner doesn't change anything. Israel took responsibility for the safety and security of everybody in Gaza the moment they restricted access and egress and began depriving the area of internal power, water and self-sustainability. The Palestinians in Gaza are Israelis.

Or they could arrest them and have real trials. .... Nah. :pNo no no. Israelis would have to present real evidence then. The way it is now it is enough for them to suspect to level entire neighborhoods. Israelis are the new Nazis. Their secret service has used Gestapo methods for years.

War sucks.

Remember how a few days ago one of the Gaza Rockets misfired and killed two girls inside Gaza?

That sucks as well.

In general War sucks period.

No no no. Israelis would have to present real evidence then. The way it is now it is enough for them to suspect to level entire neighborhoods. Israelis are the new Nazis. Their secret service has used Gestapo methods for years.

Horrible comparison. The magnitude difference doesn't bear up.

However, the Nazi treatment of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals and the Israeli and Palestinian view of eachother does have one very important similarity:

Dehumanization. It's a lot easier to justify one's actions when one doesn't view your foes as people just like you.

War sucks.

Remember how a few days ago one of the Gaza Rockets misfired and killed two girls inside Gaza?

That sucks as well.

In general War sucks period.

Except that it isn't war.

War sucks.

Remember how a few days ago one of the Gaza Rockets misfired and killed two girls inside Gaza?

That sucks as well.

In general War sucks period.They should have never let Jews into Palestine in the first place. That would have avoided quite a number of wars.
I mean, what do you expect from folks who think they are god's chosen people in their promised land and everybody else is just dispensable human dirt? They will start wars. Of course.

Horrible comparison. The magnitude difference doesn't bear up.
However, the Nazi treatment of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals and the Israeli and Palestinian view of eachother does have one very important similarity:
Dehumanization. It's a lot easier to justify one's actions when one doesn't view your foes as people just like you.Magnitude is not important. Ideology defines evil. Israel is evil and they use methods like the Nazis did.

*nod*

No no no. Israelis would have to present real evidence then. The way it is now it is enough for them to suspect to level entire neighborhoods. Israelis are the new Nazis. Their secret service has used Gestapo methods for years.

Godwin came late to this thread i see. If Israel is the new nazis then OMG what does that make the US who has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians over two wars. How many neighborhoods have the US leveled? Did all those dead innocent Iraqis get the same trials that your demanding the Palestinians get? Has Israel done anything in Palestine, anything at all, that the US hasnt done in parellel in Iraq? You all seem to have an incredible double standard. The US has been in Baghdad for 7 years and they have as much electricity as Gaza does.

They should have never let Jews into Palestine in the first place. That would have avoided quite a number of wars.
I mean, what do you expect from folks who think they are god's chosen people in their promised land and everybody else is just dispensable human dirt? They will start wars. Of course.
Look, the only thing that I personally owe The Jews is about £3 of overdraft on my student account, but saying that all Israelis think the same way is incredibly retarded -_-

There are Jews who are against the actions of the Israeli government, you know.

They should have never let Jews into Palestine in the first place. That would have avoided quite a number of wars.
I mean, what do you expect from folks who think they are god's chosen people in their promised land and everybody else is just dispensable human dirt? They will start wars. Of course.

OK, I'm no fan of Israel (I rather like NAS's recommendation), but how about you show where Israel has started wars.

They should have never let Jews into Palestine in the first place. That would have avoided quite a number of wars.
I mean, what do you expect from folks who think they are god's chosen people in their promised land and everybody else is just dispensable human dirt? They will start wars. Of course.

Magnitude is not important. Ideology defines evil. Israel is evil and they use methods like the Nazis did.

*nod*

If the crime of dehumanizing people is what makes the Israelis as evil as Nazis, then I submit that the Palestinians are as evil as the Israelis. In fact, considering the History of Israel, I would submit that all of the Middle East and Europe were just as evil. A least from the late 40s to late 60s they were.

There are Jews who are against the actions of the Israeli government, you know.Oh, is that why the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is over and why the Jewish settlers are leaving? Is that why Israel has stopped indiscriminately killing Palestinians in Gaza?

I don't blame Israel for all of the killings, if you want to blame anyone, blame the neighbors, like Syria for example, who want to "Drive them (Israel) into the sea", or next door but 1 Iran who are developing Nuclear weapons. Im presonally not surprised Israel are being so aggressive with neighbors like that, especially with Iran stockpilling the hardware to do something about it. The killing of innocents is never right, but in some cases it is understandable, and in cases where we know the root cause we need to cure it, but sadly in many cases we cant. Israel have taken steps to make peace with their neighbors, but groups like Hamas (Sorry if i've mis-spelt that) threaten peace, and the Israeli's respond in the only way they know, the american idea fof superior firepower, its Vietnam just in a different place. Israel are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

They should have never let Jews into Palestine in the first place. That would have avoided quite a number of wars. They never should have allowed the US to form, that would have avoided alot of wars.

And since you brought up Nazis
They never should have allowed Germany to reform that would have prevented World War 2. Of course that would have been wrong to the Germans.

Israelis already were activally rebelling against the British. They weren't going to hold the country much longer. Unless you're a hypocrite and believe that Great Britian should have killed them all.


I mean, what do you expect from folks who think they are god's chosen people in their promised land and everybody else is just dispensable human dirt? They will start wars. Of course. Start wars? The first war never truely ended to begin with.


Magnitude is not important. Ideology defines evil. Israel is evil and they use methods like the Nazis did.
*nod* Mmm Delicious Godwin.

Yes because Israel has Gas Chambers and they are actively trying to invade most of the world.

Troll.

Oh, is that why the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is over and why the Jewish settlers are leaving? Is that why Israel has stopped indiscriminately killing Palestinians in Gaza?
No, in the same way that anti-Iraq War feeling has not caused the US and UK to pull out as much as the fiscal realities of the conflict. If the people at the top stand to gain from it, then it will continue to go on. Note that this is also why Islamic Jihad and Hamas are still firing rockets at Israeli settlements.

No, in the same way that anti-Iraq War feeling has not caused the US and UK to pull out as much as the fiscal realities of the conflict. If the people at the top stand to gain from it, then it will continue to go on. Note that this is also why Islamic Jihad and Hamas are still firing rockets at Israeli settlements.So you only blame the government??? What about the folks who put the people in the government by electing them? There has not been a moderate government since Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Israelis WANT to keep Palestinians under occupation and control.
And when Palestinians fire rockets into Israel it's only revenge for their 60 years of suffering as third class humans at the hands of their Jewish overlords. I say the Israelis learned well from the Germans.

So you only blame the government??? What about the folks who put the people in the government by electing them? There has not been a moderate government since Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Israelis WANT to keep Palestinians under occupation and control.
And when Palestinians fire rockets into Israel it's only revenge for their 60 years of suffering as third class humans at the hands of their Jewish overlords. I say the Israelis learned well from the Germans.

It must be nice to be so certain of things.

It must be nice to be so certain of things.
I am certain and I am right. Otherwise there would be no conflict, no occupation, no bombings, there would be either a Palestinian state or Palestinians would be full Israeli citizens.

I am certain and I am right. Otherwise there would be no conflict, no occupation, no bombings, there would be either a Palestinian state or Palestinians would be full Israeli citizens.

I wouldn't be so quick to lay the blame solely at the door of Jews though.

Arabs currently make up 10% of the Knesset, there has even been an Arab president, abeit breifly.

You know, this is why the Middle East is so fucked up: Because both sides have maniacs on them. As soon as the rational elements begin to get an upper hand, the maniacs come in and throw feces at eachother.

It's a pity that's only a metaphor because if that's what really happened in the region, it would be a lot more entertaining. :p

How long have they been fighting now? like 40-50 years?

Do these bombings really come as a suprise?

Yes, that they would drop them on a Refugee camp. That is so illegal it could only come from someone supported by the U.S.

Yes, that they would drop them on a Refugee camp. That is so illegal it could only come from someone supported by the U.S.Just for the lulz, because we're all such evil bastards. :p

Clearly the Israelis do not believe that all human lives are equal.

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." --Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein.

Horrible comparison. The magnitude difference doesn't bear up.

However, the Nazi treatment of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals and the Israeli and Palestinian view of eachother does have one very important similarity:

Dehumanization. It's a lot easier to justify one's actions when one doesn't view your foes as people just like you.

The Final Solution wasn't an immediate Day One plan of action either. It slowly built up over time as the systematic dehumanization, ghettoization and collective punishment continued until those charge decided to come with a sweeping plan to the Question.

So you only blame the government??? What about the folks who put the people in the government by electing them? There has not been a moderate government since Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Israelis WANT to keep Palestinians under occupation and control.
Because there have been no decent Israeli candidates for the leadership of the country, ever. Can't blame the populace for that.
And when Palestinians fire rockets into Israel it's only revenge for their 60 years of suffering as third class humans at the hands of their Jewish overlords. I say the Israelis learned well from the Germans.
The suffering has gone both ways in this conflict.
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." --Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein.
And Udo Voigt compared Dresden to the Holocaust - does that mean that all Germans are quite so stupid?

...except when they don't.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6554487.stm


http://www.btselem.org/english/human_shields/index.asp


http://www.shovrimshtika.org/press_item_e.asp?id=99

there are no "good guys" in this conflict.


qft.

Why would it stop if Israelis left the OT? Restoring the situation of May 1967 would mean restoring the hundreds of daily missile launches in May 1967..

...according to you. Theres seemingly no such thing in your world as a negotiated settlement.


Not (....)to keep losing...

..ignoring the lack of state actors in the latter stages and the fact that theres no legal basis for that in law at all.


It is utterly unacceptable in this period for ANY ethnic group to be doubling every 25 years. ...

Is this a new view of yours? Because before when we were discussing settlement populations, you mentioned the very very high birth rate amongst settler families, but you didn't seem to find that "utterly unacceptable"...

Biting social commentary in Flash form:

Raid Gaza! (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/476393)

Didn't make it but as a semi-regular NG browser I noticed it and it was rather timely.

OK, I'm no fan of Israel (I rather like NAS's recommendation), but how about you show where Israel has started wars.
Well the Six-Day war is one that was started...

You know, this is why the Middle East is so fucked up: Because both sides have maniacs on them. As soon as the rational elements begin to get an upper hand, the maniacs come in and throw feces at eachother.
The weird thing is that the extreme groups seem to be more intent in annihilating the majority of people who would normally not want to be in/causing the current problems, instead of the other extreme groups.

It's a pity that's only a metaphor because if that's what really happened in the region, it would be a lot more entertaining. :p
You know these groups - feces would end up with rocks and grenades embedded within.

Well the Six-Day war is one that was started...
Arguable...
In May 1967, Egypt's president Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula. The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion which was launched during the Suez Crisis. Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab countries. On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt's airforce. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
(Yeah its from wikipedia but they're damn easy to grab info from)

Did Israel launch the first strike? Yes, however Egypt made the first move.

Arguable...
They started the war. That's not arguable.

Did Israel launch the first strike? Yes, however Egypt made the first move.

If you want to do that you can always consider the problems of previous Israeli attempt to keep Sinai, or you can look at the much more important dodgy actions that Syria and Israel were taking towards each other - Syria trying to divert water before it went into Israel, Israel bombing such works. Also consider the border clashes Syria and Israel were having.

Then there was the whole problem with Jordan being pressured to be nice, the Israel taking it as a blank cheque for action against border areas 'suspected' of holding militants.

They started the war. That's not arguable.



If you want to do that you can always consider the problems of previous Israeli attempt to keep Sinai or you can look at the much more prevalent dodgy actions that Syria and Israel were taking towards each other - Syria trying to divert water before it went into Israel, Israel bombing such works. Also consider the border clashes Syria and Israel were having.

Then there was the whole problem with Jordan being pressured to be nice, the Israel taking it as a blank cheque for action against border areas 'suspected' of holding militants.

So you don't consider Egypt ejecting the UN peace-keeping force from the Sinai peninsula to be an act of aggression?

Throughout 1956, tensions increased between Israel and Egypt, with Egyptian fedayeen launching frequent incursions into Israeli territory and Israel launching retaliatory raids into Egyptian territory. On July 26, 1956, Egypt, under the leadership of President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the canal, a vital trade route to the east, in which British banks and business held a 44% stake. This was done in order to raise revenue for the construction of the Aswan High Dam on the Nile River. Previously, the United States and Britain had agreed to help pay for this project, but cancelled their support after Egypt had bought tanks from communist Czechoslovakia, then under the control of the Soviet Union, and extended diplomatic recognition to Communist China. The better relationship with the Chinese was the result of the Bandung Conference in 1955, where Nasser had asked the Chinese to use their influence on the Soviets to supply Egypt with the necessary arms.

The British Prime Minister of the time, Sir Anthony Eden, tried to persuade the British public of the need for war and so, perhaps in an attempt to recall World War II-era patriotism, he compared Nasser's nationalisation of the Suez Canal with the nationalism of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler twenty years earlier. However, it is interesting to note that the very first comparisons between 1930s dictators and Nasser during the crisis was made by the opposition Labour leader, Hugh Gaitskell and the left-leaning tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mirror. Eden had been a staunch opponent of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement and he claimed that a display of force was needed to prevent Nasser becoming another expansionist military threat.

In the months that followed Egypt's nationalisation of the canal (actually the company that operated the Canal, Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez), a secret meeting between Israel, France and Britain took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Details only emerged years later, as records of the meeting were suppressed and destroyed. All parties agreed that Israel should invade and that Britain and France would subsequently intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces to a distance of ten miles (16 km) from either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said. It was to be called "Operation Musketeer".
linky (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Suez_Crisis_-_Background/id/602886)

Kinda points to Egypt being the aggressors...

So you don't consider Egypt ejecting the UN peace-keeping force from the Sinai peninsula to be an act of aggression?
An act of aggression? No. It was an aggressive move, but not an act of aggression.

Anyway, you asked for a war that Israel started and I gave you one.

linky (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Suez_Crisis_-_Background/id/602886)
Kinda points to Egypt being the aggressors...
You're using that as evidence of aggression? Nationalism =/= war making.

That and the quote states that Britain, France and Israel were perfectly happy for a war of aggression to protect their economic interests (mostly Franch and British interests, as Israel didn't use it that much for it's own shipping afaik).

An act of aggression? No. It was an aggressive move, but not an act of aggression.

Anyway, you asked for a war that Israel started and I gave you one.

You honestly do not see kicking the UN troops out and then amassing troops on the border as an act of aggression?

You are obviously either very naive or completely biased in favor of the Palestinians.

I was just reading in the New York post. There is 15 to 1 ratio. For every 1 civilian 15 terrorist were killed. What would we expect. Openly fire rockets into the most heavily defended and funded country in the Middle East. Although there would be a huge backlash here and elsewhere they should finish the job with a ground attack but that would put Israeli soldiers and reservists at risk.

This was one of the most perfect air raids in the history of the region. So far no one has match them in the lack of collateral damage. Superior air power means you can eliminate your enemy without ever having to see their faces.

You honestly do not see kicking the UN troops out and then amassing troops on the border as an act of aggression?
Mostly it was a case of sabre rattling for Nasser, though I think he was more concerned about keeping his army in line than he cared about attacking Israel.

Please explain how it is an act of aggression, such as the mutual attacks between Syria and Israel, rather than an aggressive move. Further explain how that legitimises a first strike by Israel into another country, and how that is not starting a war.

Mobilising armed forces =/= starting a war. Using armed forces to attack another nation usually does = war.

Oh, and lastly, UAR had the right to remove the UN forces acting as peacekeepers, just as Israel had the right to refuse peacekeepers on their side of the border.

You are obviously either very naive or completely biased in favor of the Palestinians.
(Emphasis mine) Interesting... A discussion about the 1967 war, whilst a bit of a threadjack, yet it gets turned into a focus on Palestinians? When did they figure into this little side topic?

Also you seem pretty biased in favour of Israel never starting a war and eager to ignore the main tensions of Israel/Syria.

You also assumed my position wrongly. My is that that almost all the leadership in that region are either ideologues (religious or otherwise) or power hungry, with unhealthy creamy topping of paranoia, all liberally coated with powdered grudge.

Israel/Palestine would have been much better off as one nation, with roughly equal protection for both groups, and strong condemnation for all the freaky religious groups that want to blow each other up (rather than it is now, with both religious and nationalist groups wanting to blow each other up in a kind of four way battle royale with the civilians being squashed between them all).

Palestinians need to unconditionally stop the rocket attacks and return to the barginning table because they have no hope in armed conflict. There enemy is too strong and too well funded.

Mostly it was a case of sabre rattling for Nasser, though I think he was more concerned about keeping his army in line than he cared about attacking Israel.

Please explain how it is an act of aggression, such as the mutual attacks between Syria and Israel, rather than an aggressive move. Further explain how that legitimises a first strike by Israel into another country, and how that is not starting a war.

Mobilising armed forces =/= starting a war. Using armed forces to attack another nation usually does = war.
So it wasn't an act of aggression because you think Gamal Abdel Nasser didn't intend to invade...
(Emphasis mine) Interesting... A discussion about the 1967 war, whilst a bit of a threadjack, yet it gets turned into a focus on Palestinians? When did they figure into this little side topic?
When the thread is about them?
Also you seem pretty biased in favour of Israel never starting a war and eager to ignore the main tensions of Israel/Syria.
Not ignoring them, I didn't comment on the section of your post concerning that because I agreed with your summation of the Israel/Syria situation circa 1967.
As to the first portion of this snippet, that is because my view of it is that they reacted to aggression. They certainly could have put more effort into working towards peace, but do you honestly think that Israel could have done anything to appease Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?

So it wasn't an act of aggression because you think Gamal Abdel Nasser didn't intend to invade...
Considering:
-There were no border clashes, bombardments, or prior to the Israeli air strike, on either side.
-UAR was allowed remove the peacekeepers, and allowed to station troops where it wished.

Then yes, I would say it wasn't an act of aggression.

I'll state this again: Mobilising armed forces =/= starting a war. Using armed forces to attack another nation usually does = war.

When the thread is about them?
What does this side topic have to do with Palestinians? I mean we could talk about the after effects, though the war itself, and the major precursors to it were not centred around the Palestinians.

Not ignoring them, I didn't comment on the section of your post concerning that because I agreed with your summation of the Israel/Syria situation circa 1967.
Then you could see how the Israel/Syria situation was far more toxic than anything Egypt could have done (and was the situation in which acts of aggression were actually taking place, between both sides). The U.S.S.R didn't help much, hinting that Israel was planning an attack on Syria, causing UAR and Syria to mobilise much more heavily.

In my personal opinion that's half the reason why Egypt/UAR's forces weren't as ready for a defensive fight as they could have been - they thought that if there was going to be a war it would be Israel attacking Syria, giving them time to prepare. A bit similar to Israel's thought prior to the 1973 war, they thought they would have a clear prior warning of a war as well.

As to the first portion of this snippet, that is because my view of it is that they reacted to aggression. They certainly could have put more effort into working towards peace, but do you honestly think that Israel could have done anything to appease Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?
Here are some ways that agreements could have been found:

Egypt - Try and work to some kind of agreement about maritime trade. Play to Nasser's ego, promis to give him support (play to his paranoia) if he will recognise and support Israel.

Syria - Stop attacking or provoking Syrian attacks in the demilitirised zones. Work to some kind agreement to allow peaceful relations with Syria, hopefully with a positive Nasser pushing Syria.

Jordan - Don't attack border areas. The Jordanian king was warm towards Israel (mostly because of support from the U.S.A), and didn't like Nasser. Border attacks by Israel on suspect militant areas pushed him into a corner, both within and without Jordan.

Israel's problem then is similar to the U.S.A in the 90's and early 2000's - Their clear advantage was military, so any solution or situation was always looked through the lens of the military.

However this war at least was done through the lens of an election that Olmert's party might lose. Nothing like a war to drum up support, especially against a group much weaker than Hezbollah.

Considering:
-There were no border clashes, bombardments, or prior to the Israeli air strike, on either side.
-UAR was allowed remove the peacekeepers, and allowed to station troops where it wished.

Then yes, I would say it wasn't an act of aggression.

I'll state this again: Mobilising armed forces =/= starting a war. Using armed forces to attack another nation usually does = war.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, I see where you are coming from I just don't agree with your conclusion.

What does this side topic have to do with Palestinians? I mean we could talk about the after effects, though the war itself, and the major precursors to it were not centred around the Palestinians.
true, I was thinking in terms of the thread not just our highjack.

Then you could see how the Israel/Syria situation was far more toxic than anything Egypt could have done (and was the situation in which acts of aggression were actually taking place, between both sides). The U.S.S.R didn't help much, hinting that Israel was planning an attack on Syria, causing UAR and Syria to mobilise much more heavily.

In my personal opinion that's half the reason why Egypt/UAR's forces weren't as ready for a defensive fight as they could have been - they thought that if there was going to be a war it would be Israel attacking Syria, giving them time to prepare. A bit similar to Israel's thought prior to the 1973 war, they thought they would have a clear prior warning of a war as well.
Can't argue there
Here are some ways that agreements could have been found:

Egypt - Try and work to some kind of agreement about maritime trade. Play to Nasser's ego, promis to give him support (play to his paranoia) if he will recognise and support Israel.

Syria - Stop attacking or provoking Syrian attacks in the demilitirised zones. Work to some kind agreement to allow peaceful relations with Syria, hopefully with a positive Nasser pushing Syria.

Jordan - Don't attack border areas. The Jordanian king was warm towards Israel (mostly because of support from the U.S.A), and didn't like Nasser. Border attacks by Israel on suspect militant areas pushed him into a corner, both within and without Jordan.
This is ignoring pressure put on Egypt, Syria and Jordan from other Arab countries, but it would have been worth a shot.
Israel's problem then is similar to the U.S.A in the 90's and early 2000's - Their clear advantage was military, so any solution or situation was always looked through the lens of the military.
True
However this war at least was done through the lens of an election that Olmert's party might lose. Nothing like a war to drum up support, especially against a group much weaker than Hezbollah.
Again can't argue there...

It appears that we agree on pretty much everything except who the aggressor was in the Six Day War...

This is ignoring pressure put on Egypt, Syria and Jordan from other Arab countries, but it would have been worth a shot.
If Israel had been gentle with Jordan then they would have had them in the bag (the king was already guiding it that way). UAR would be a relatively tough nut to crack, though Nasser was definately willing to side with the group most beneficial to Nasser and UAR - Any agreement to help defend Sinai and the Syrian region against others (Jordan, U.S.S.R) would have gone a long way, even if it was just used as a PR boost for Nasser. Economic agreements would sweeten the deal even more.

A really radical approach to UAR would have been to completely agree with the nationalisation of the Suez Company, though they also wanted to keep U.K and France as tight as possible.

The Syrian region would have been, by far, the hardest to get, mainly due to the mutual hatred/fear the Israelis and Syrians had towards each other. Both of them agreeing to do absolutely nothing in the area, then with tantalising offers of a favourable peace agreement and some kind of Israel funded rebuilding program within the region (and only that region, so a message that a war would be even more damaging would be sent) would have helped. Nasser's control would have also helped smooth it over

Hell, the U.S.A would have probably chipped most of the money needed, they were always looking to move countries from the U.S.S.R sphere into their own (or allies').

It appears that we agree on pretty much everything except who the aggressor was in the Six Day War...
Well UAR was well within it's rights to do what it did (the UN troops were there under the permission of UAR) and it didn't launch any attacks against Israeli position, nor was there any small teams going in, unlike what Israel had been doing along the coast of UAR. Not only were the amount of troops present there insufficient for a sustained assault (barely enough along the frontlines for a proper defensive action), but Israeli military leaders didn't think it was an aggressive action (or even and act of aggression) either.

The only real problem was the refusal to let Israeli ships through their straits, though that was also perfectly legal (from the opinion that the coast was part of Egypt, so their maritime border extended across it), and the people that really pushed against that were the nations that wanted the Suez Company back, along with Israel.

Haim Bar-Lev, the present Minister of Commerce and Industry but until recently chief of staff of the armed forces (and deputy chief during the war), has stated that "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."

If Gamal Abdel Nasser had not insisted on barring the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, Bar-Lev insists, the war would not have occurred, at least not at that time.

If Israel really thought the UN troops leaving would mean Egypt would attack any time they would have granted Thant's request to restation the troops on the Israeli side. That request was denied.

Now, I think that conversation was exhausting enough...

israel/palestine would have been much better off as one nation, with roughly equal protection for both groups, and strong condemnation for all the freaky religious groups that want to blow each other up (rather than it is now, with both religious and nationalist groups wanting to blow each other up in a kind of four way battle royale with the civilians being squashed between them all).

this ^

The only real problem was the refusal to let Israeli ships through their straits, though that was also perfectly legal
No. The Straits of Tiran were regarded as international waters, and blockading them (not just against Israeli ships, but against any ships going to Israel: Egypt fired warning shots at an Iranian oil-tanker, since Iran was, odd though it sounds now, an Israeli ally at the time) was an act of war.

Israel/Palestine would have been much better off as one nation, with roughly equal protection for both groups
That's what the Palestinians rejected in 1920.

That's what the Palestinians rejected in 1920.

source pls?

That's what the Palestinians rejected in 1920.

Wasn't 1920 when the Brits were awarded the area?

Wasn't 1920 when the Brits were awarded the area?

Yes it was.

British Mandate (1920–1948)

Palestine and Transjordan were incorporated (under different legal and administrative arrangements) into the Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations to Great Britain on 29 September 1923
The new era in Palestine. The arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel, H.B.M. high commissioner, etc. with Col. Lawrence, Emir Abdullah, Air Marshal Salmond and Sir Wyndham Deedes.

The British Mandate enacted English, Hebrew and Arabic as its three official languages. The land designated by the mandate was called Palestine in English, Falastin (فلسطين) in Arabic, and in Hebrew Palestina or Eretz Yisrael ((פלשתינה (א"י).

In the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918 the French and British governments pledged their support for "national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations." In May 1919, elections were held for the General Syrian Congress. At a meeting in Damascus, held on the 8th of March 1920, the Congress adopted a resolution rejecting the Faisal-Clemenceau accords. The congress declared the independence of Syria, including Palestine, and proclaimed Faisal the king of Arabs. The new state included territory in Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes-Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state, or confederation of states.

In April 1920 the Allied Supreme Council (the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) met at Sanremo and formal decisions were taken on the allocation of mandate territories. The United Kingdom obtained a mandate for Palestine and France obtained a mandate for Syria. The boundaries of the mandates and the conditions under which they were to be held were not decided. The Zionist Organization's representative at Sanremo, Chaim Weizmann, subsequently reported to his colleagues in London:

There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Feisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris.

In July 1920, the French drove Faisal bin Husayn from Damascus ending his already negligible control over the region of Transjordan, where local chiefs traditionally resisted any central authority. The sheikhs, who had earlier pledged their loyalty to the Sharif of Mecca, asked the British to undertake the region's administration. Herbert Samuel asked for the extension of the Palestine government's authority to Transjordan, but at meetings in Cairo and Jerusalem between Winston Churchill and Emir Abdullah in March 1921 it was agreed that Abdullah would administer the territory (initially for six months only) on behalf of the Palestine administration. In the summer of 1921 Transjordan was included within the Mandate, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home. On 24 July, 1922 the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement. With Transjordan coming under the administration of the British Mandate, the mandate's collective territory became constituted of 23% Palestine and 77% Transjordan. The Mandate for Palestine, while specifying actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status, stated, in Article 25, that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home. Transjordan was a very sparsely populated region (especially in comparison with Palestine proper) due to its relatively limited resources and largely desert environment.

The Preamble of the League of Nations Mandate required the Principal Allied Powers to fix the boundaries. In 1923 an agreement between the United Kingdom and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria. The British handed over the southern Golan Heights to the French in return for the northern Jordan Valley. The border was re-drawn so that both sides of the Jordan River and the whole of the Sea of Galilee, including a 10-metre wide strip along the northeastern shore, were made a part of Palestine with the following provisoes:

* Any existing rights over the use of the waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.
* The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier
* Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised.
* The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes.

The award of the mandates was delayed as a result of the United States' suspicions regarding Britain's colonial ambitions and similar reservations held by Italy about France's intentions. France in turn refused to reach a settlement over Palestine until its own mandate in Syria became final. According to Louis:

Look, the whole problem is Hamas doesnt WANT peace period. They have formed an organization that its entire existence is focused on Israel. Without Israel, Hamas would have no reason to exist. There would be no scapegoats to blame thier own incompetence on and Hamas would eventually crumble under itself. Every group needs its foil to keep its funding and support.

Think about it, why does Hamas launch rockets into Israel. Is it because they think somehow it will cause them to achieve a miraculous military victory? No its to provoke Israel to hit back so they can go cry to their people and rally them for support. Its completely self serving at the expense of their own civilians.

Without Israel to rally against, Hamas would actually have to create industry and production and have a domestic policy just like any other government and they would eventually collapse under their own incompetence and corruption. But as long as they can keep Israel as the bad guys they have a perfectly acceptable excuse why they dont do anything. Waaa its all Israels fault. This is why when Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he asked for in exchange for peace, he was so flummoxed that he turned it down.

Look, the whole problem is Hamas doesnt WANT peace period. They have formed an organization that its entire existence is focused on Israel. Without Israel, Hamas would have no reason to exist. There would be no scapegoats to blame thier own incompetence on and Hamas would eventually crumble under itself. Every group needs its foil to keep its funding and support.

Think about it, why does Hamas launch rockets into Israel. Is it because they think somehow it will cause them to achieve a miraculous military victory? No its to provoke Israel to hit back so they can go cry to their people and rally them for support. Its completely self serving at the expense of their own civilians.

Without Israel to rally against, Hamas would actually have to create industry and production and have a domestic policy just like any other government and they would eventually collapse under their own incompetence and corruption. But as long as they can keep Israel as the bad guys they have a perfectly acceptable excuse why they dont do anything. Waaa its all Israels fault. This is why when Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he asked for in exchange for peace, he was so flummoxed that he turned it down.

Another reason why Hamas continues to wage a war of terrorism against the nation of Israel is that they believe that they will be rewarded in Paradise, as shahidin (martyrs), and that there sins will all be atoned for, without the need of Purgatory. Which incidently was also what inticed people, on both sides, to fight during the Crusades as well.

source pls?In 1920 the British were proposing a unitary state in Palestine, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs; of course, they were also encouraging continued Jewish immigration which made many Arabs worry about being outnumbered. Amin Husseini demanded that the old "dhimmi" system in which only Muslims had full citizenship (note: many of the Arabs were Christians, who had also been second-class citizens, subject to various ritual humiliations) be retained, and launched the "Nabi Musa" riots, in which six Jews were killed and many others burned out of their homes, under the catchy slogan Itbach al Yahud! ("exterminate the Jew"). In elections for a national council, Husseini's "Majlissiyun" party won most of the seats, so the British named him "Grand Mufti" (traditional title of the head of the civilian administration).

In 1920 the British were proposing a unitary state in Palestine, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs; of course, they were also encouraging continued Jewish immigration which made many Arabs worry about being outnumbered. Amin Husseini demanded that the old "dhimmi" system in which only Muslims had full citizenship (note: many of the Arabs were Christians, who had also been second-class citizens, subject to various ritual humiliations) be retained, and launched the "Nabi Musa" riots, in which six Jews were killed and many others burned out of their homes, under the catchy slogan Itbach al Yahud! ("exterminate the Jew"). In elections for a national council, Husseini's "Majlissiyun" party won most of the seats, so the British named him "Grand Mufti" (traditional title of the head of the civilian administration).

That is not a source. That is an assertion of fact.

Truth. I'd look up a source, but I'm lazy right now.

I just hope the bombs continue to rain down on gaza until nothing is left, then maybe it will all be over.

I suggest everyone read about the founding of Israel (terrorism against the Brits, etc..), and about its history from all sides, not merely those in power. To learn more of their treachery, read what the captain and survivors of the USS Liberty had to say about Israel's attack on them and the subsequent cover up by traitors in our own government. Read all about AIPAC and Israel's numerous spies from non-Christian Zionist points of view. Learn for yourself. Investigate.
Israel was founded on terrorism, but we now call them freedom fighters, even after the initial and continued ethnic cleansing in the name of continuing to take more and more land. This occurred well before what we know as "Islamic extremism." They escape a holocaust, then turn right around and perpetrate one against simple farmers.
Respect? I have none for them because I am informed. I hereby cut off all the billions in foreign aid being funneled into making more weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism is a tactic, and what ye sow, ye reap. It takes courage to stand up to bullies and I commend the Palestinian people for their long suffering.
If this is deleted, it is because if you can't say it, it is true.

Kelticka out.

I just hope the bombs continue to rain down on gaza until nothing is left, then maybe it will all be over.

It would be easier if all of occupied Palestine were emptied. Then we wouldn't have to debate this, or have our governments and treasuries looted on a regular basis for this "s-itty little nation."

Kelticka will no longer post in this thread. It does not negotiate with bullies from rogue states.

It would be easier if all of occupied Palestine were emptied. Then we wouldn't have to debate this, or have our governments and treasuries looted on a regular basis for this "s-itty little nation."


It really does get tiring after about 50 years doesn't it?

My "favorite" Israel/Hamas moment was when Israel ordered Helicopters to destroy a Hamas car during rush hour, only to miss the intended targets and kill one random bystander while injuring 20.


They just love helicopter attacks during rush hour....was that under Sharon?


It's not obvious to me. I think there are sacrifices that can be made, and compromises that could be reached. Even Hamas can be turned around.


I just think if they were to agree on anything, they would have done it after 50 years.

I wonder how boring NSG would get if peace did breakout in the region.

*ponders*

I'm sure we would find something else to make endless debate threads about...

:rolleyes:

This occurred well before what we know as "Islamic extremism."
You are totally mistaken. The Islamic extremism had been going on for decades before any retaliations.

I just hope the bombs continue to rain down on gaza until nothing is left, then maybe it will all be over.

Great. Thread starts with a report of five sisters, almost certainly innocent, being killed by a bomb.

Five isn't enough for you apparently. One and a half million people is the cost of your serenity.

It would be easier if all of occupied Palestine were emptied. Then we wouldn't have to debate this, or have our governments and treasuries looted on a regular basis for this "s-itty little nation."

Kelticka will no longer post in this thread. It does not negotiate with bullies from rogue states.

It really does get tiring after about 50 years doesn't it?

Are you finished?

Great. Thread starts with a report of five sisters, almost certainly innocent, being killed by a bomb.
Five isn't enough for you apparently. One and a half million people is the cost of your serenity.



Honestly I take no sides in this fight, I believe they are both wrong, and their ignorance and faulty belief structures have caused all of this madness and bomb-dropping.


Are you finished?

Is the pope jewish?

Kimberley Plan ftw!

Actually, it's good that plan never had a chance. Or there'd be Aboriginal Liberationists wanting their land back and blowing stuff up from Canberra to Christmas Island.

Honestly I take no sides in this fight, I believe they are both wrong, and their ignorance and faulty belief structures have caused all of this madness and bomb-dropping.

Your solution to which is to exterminate one side. That's not mad, much at all.

"Final solution" ring any bells with you?

*sigh*

My call is that Israel will put troops into Gaza in the next few days. Let's see if I'm right.

Your solution to which is to exterminate one side. That's not mad, much at all.

"Final solution" ring any bells with you?

*sigh*

My call is that Israel will put troops into Gaza in the next few days. Let's see if I'm right.

I say let 'em fight it out. I mean why not? Unless if some miracle treaty is formed between the two I just don't ever see an end to this madness until all of one side (or both) is completely destroyed. And even then it probably won't be over. There will always be something to fight about.

I say let 'em fight it out. I mean why not? Unless if some miracle treaty is formed between the two I just don't ever see an end to this madness until all of one side (or both) is completely destroyed. And even then it probably won't be over. There will always be something to fight about.Where is your sense of justice?

Honestly I take no sides in this fight, I believe they are both wrong, and their ignorance and faulty belief structures have caused all of this madness and bomb-dropping. A self-styled "chosen people" is always wrong. Peasants who just wanted to live not so much.

Is the pope jewish?In a way.

Where is your sense of justice?

It has no place in the real world.

Justice is a luxury only the powerful and/or influential can take.

It has no place in the real world.

Justice is a luxury only the powerful and/or influential can take.Now what a humanistic approach that is. :rolleyes:

The 5000 was an exaggeration but just a few eye opening snippets..

"In exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, missing since October 2000, and one Israeli businessman, abducted in October 2000 under questionable circumstances, Israel released more than 430 Arab prisoners on January 29, 2004."

"In 1985, Israel freed 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon"

Too bad we don't know if these people actually were convicted of anything, or if they were just held in administrative detention.

Look, the whole problem is Hamas doesnt WANT peace period. They have formed an organization that its entire existence is focused on Israel. Without Israel, Hamas would have no reason to exist.
And without Israeli backing and support in the past, Hamas wouldn't exist.

It's a monster that Israel had a role in creating and unleashing.

There would be no scapegoats to blame thier own incompetence on and Hamas would eventually crumble under itself. Every group needs its foil to keep its funding and support.

Think about it, why does Hamas launch rockets into Israel. Is it because they think somehow it will cause them to achieve a miraculous military victory? No its to provoke Israel to hit back so they can go cry to their people and rally them for support. Its completely self serving at the expense of their own civilians.

Without Israel to rally against, Hamas would actually have to create industry and production and have a domestic policy just like any other government and they would eventually collapse under their own incompetence and corruption. But as long as they can keep Israel as the bad guys they have a perfectly acceptable excuse why they dont do anything.
Which is why it's unfortunate that Israel responds in the way they're now doing, as that means that Hamas can say "See? We were right! Israel kills babies!"

The attack on Gaza is playing right into the hands of Hamas... For now. If Israel doesn't move in to destroy the organization completely, they will only have bolstred support for the organization, a support that was erroding before the attack. And if they invade Gaza again, will a Hamas-like organization be created as a response? One that the other arab countries will support? Who knows...

All I can say is, I think the attack is a really bad idea, and I see few good things resulting from it.

I just hope the bombs continue to rain down on gaza until nothing is left, then maybe it will all be over.

Then on to the West Bank?

It has no place in the real world.

Justice is a luxury only the powerful and/or influential can take.

I disagree with you there. I think it's important - fundamental - in the real world.

Now what a humanistic approach that is. :rolleyes:

It's realistic as opposed to humanistic. We like to pretend that because we have civilization, we've left behind our more animalistic roots, but that's hardly the case. The law of the jungle is practically woven into human society, into the human psyche I would even say.

Look at human history, where it has gone, and where it is likely to go. The existence of all the advancements and shiny cities of the first world would not be possible without the pillage and suffering visited on the weaker portions of the world.

For the thousands who have died and suffered for the ambitions and greed of the powerful, where did justice lie then? Where does justice lie now for that fact? It does not exist for them. (On a separate topic, I suspect this is part of the reasons why religions are formed).

Justice is a human conceit to address the imbalances that we can observe, but can do little to truly affect.

I disagree with you there. I think it's important - fundamental - in the real world.

You may think it is important, but the world at large and humanity in general shows just how little importance is attached to the concept of justice.

To have justice, you must have power, to have power, you must be ruthless. When you are ruthless, you can no longer be just.

You may think it is important, but the world at large and humanity in general shows just how little importance is attached to the concept of justice.

To have justice, you must have power, to have power, you must be ruthless. When you are ruthless, you can no longer be just.

I still disagree, and see throughout the world at large a drive and desire for justice. We see the importance democratic nations place on the rule of law, and we see how all societies try to establish (more or less) functioning systems to appease the desire for justice that can be found in the populace. See as an example the Islamic Courts in Somalia.

But this is, of course, off topic, so I'll end it here. :wink:

It's realistic as opposed to humanistic. We like to pretend that because we have civilization, we've left behind our more animalistic roots, but that's hardly the case. The law of the jungle is practically woven into human society, into the human psyche I would even say.

I think you couldn't be more wrong: this is one big cop-out. And it implies that the horrors an injustices in history are somehow "animalistic" or natural in any way - they aren't. That's what makes them horrors.

Take the Holocaust: planned, methodical, industrialized. It wasn't some crime of passion (which might be likened to the 'law of the jungle') by 'animalistic' people acting out any sort of primal desire. It was cold and rationalized. People thought their way into doing it.

Similarly with any actions of state. Governments are not animalistic. They do things because they think, with their sentience and (flawed) reasoning, that its a good idea at the time.

Then on to the West Bank?

West Bank isn't doing anything. All they have is people pissed at the annoying settlements.

Of course what they should do is play loud music outside the settlements with Western Media and\or other countries watching costantly. The settlers won't be able to send out someone to stop them and they'll never sleep again.

I still disagree, and see throughout the world at large a drive and desire for justice. We see the importance democratic nations place on the rule of law, and we see how all societies try to establish (more or less) functioning systems to appease the desire for justice that can be found in the populace. See as an example the Islamic Courts in Somalia.

But this is, of course, off topic, so I'll end it here. :wink:

Societies may try to establish such systems, but they are always subverted or ignored by the powerful.

I think you couldn't be more wrong: this is one big cop-out. And it implies that the horrors an injustices in history are somehow "animalistic" or natural in any way - they aren't. That's what makes them horrors.

Then you have no idea what the law of the jungle is. The strong rule, the weak die. There is no justice there, and there will never be, except as a token salve to the conscience to hide other, baser, reasons for ending another.


Take the Holocaust: planned, methodical, industrialized. It wasn't some crime of passion (which might be likened to the 'law of the jungle') by 'animalistic' people acting out any sort of primal desire. It was cold and rationalized. People thought their way into doing it.

And justice did not come about because people wanted justice. It came about because there was someone stronger who recognized a threat to them and put them down. Justice was merely a moral play when it was convenient to do so.

Did the architects of the Holodomor meet justice? No. Why? Because those who might have been strong enough to do so did not find it in their interests to do so.

The "law of the jungle" applies between species. The predator eats, the prey dies.

But even among animals, ritual combat is very common. In a dispute between two animals of the same species, it often suffices to establish which one would win if they tried to kill each other.

It is simply bad for the survival of a species to have individuals kill each other for no reason, though it might be beneficial in some situations, eg food shortage. It also benefits an individual nought to vanquish their rival but sustain a serious injury in the process -- then they are weaker than some other and die too, if that's the "law of the jungle."

So rather than saying that nature is ruthless, and a desire for justice in humans no more than a delusion concocted by the powerful to protect themselves ... lets face the fact that our animal natures are not the animal natures of viruses or parasites, but are evolved for life in and as a society. We're primates, social animals.

Where is your sense of justice?

On the tip of those bombs.

A self-styled "chosen people" is always wrong. Peasants who just wanted to live not so much.

Hence why I believe both sides are wrong in this issue.

[QUOTE=HappyLesbo;14355448]
In a way.

Exactly.

Then on to the West Bank?


and then....THE WORLD!

and then....THE WORLD!

What do you mean "and then....THE WORLD"?

Jews already run the world, well known fact.

What do you mean "and then....THE WORLD"?

Jews already run the world, well known fact.

but after they bomb all those who oppose it will be total domination.

The "law of the jungle" applies between species. The predator eats, the prey dies.

The way humans treat each other, we might as well be different species based on ethnicity, lineage, religion or just plain old geography.

The strong take what they want, the weak give in or die.


But even among animals, ritual combat is very common. In a dispute between two animals of the same species, it often suffices to establish which one would win if they tried to kill each other.

It is simply bad for the survival of a species to have individuals kill each other for no reason, though it might be beneficial in some situations, eg food shortage. It also benefits an individual nought to vanquish their rival but sustain a serious injury in the process -- then they are weaker than some other and die too, if that's the "law of the jungle."

So rather than saying that nature is ruthless, and a desire for justice in humans no more than a delusion concocted by the powerful to protect themselves ... lets face the fact that our animal natures are not the animal natures of viruses or parasites, but are evolved for life in and as a society. We're primates, social animals.

And even social animals have alphas who take the lions share of the spoils, or lead the pack/troop to attack others of the same species to secure food or territory. Humans aren't any different. All we did was just slapped on a few extra layers of what makes a pack/troop, and a few more tools as to how, but the core motivations and behaviors still remain.

The way humans treat each other, we might as well be different species based on ethnicity, lineage, religion or just plain old geography.

The strong take what they want, the weak give in or die.
That ignores the vast amount of cooperation and altruism (true altruism; none of this bullshit Dawkins 'selfish' altruism) that exists within human society.

You're mischaracterising humanity.

but after they bomb all those who oppose it will be total domination.

Won't they be lonely arfter they've killed everyone in the whole world?

Then you have no idea what the law of the jungle is.

I'm pretty sure that in this context, it's being used as a big cop-out.

The strong rule, the weak die. There is no justice there, and there will never be, except as a token salve to the conscience to hide other, baser, reasons for ending another.

Nonsense.

The way humans treat each other, we might as well be different species based on ethnicity, lineage, religion or just plain old geography.

The strong take what they want, the weak give in or die.

Do they now? So okay, the victims of various genocidal movements - they were just weak, and the murderers were strong. Rape victims are just weak. Rapists are strong.

And even social animals have alphas who take the lions share of the spoils, or lead the pack/troop to attack others of the same species to secure food or territory. Humans aren't any different. All we did was just slapped on a few extra layers of what makes a pack/troop, and a few more tools as to how, but the core motivations and behaviors still remain.

Having a social structure isn't quite the same thing as a natural imperative to commit genocide.

I'm pretty sure that in this context, it's being used as a big cop-out.



Nonsense.



Do they now? So okay, the victims of various genocidal movements - they were just weak, and the murderers were strong. Rape victims are just weak. Rapists are strong.



Having a social structure isn't quite the same thing as a natural imperative to commit genocide.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan for that reason. Without any form of social contract that regulates human conduct, life would simply be "Nasty, Brutish, and Short".

That ignores the vast amount of cooperation and altruism (true altruism; none of this bullshit Dawkins 'selfish' altruism) that exists within human society.

Cooperation and altruism that only often happens when there is something to be gained from it.


You're mischaracterising humanity.

The history of humanity handily agrees with me.

I'm pretty sure that in this context, it's being used as a big cop-out.

As an excuse for human behavior? Hardly. As an accurate description of human behavior? Closer.


Nonsense.


Where is justice for the victims of the Holodomor? Where is justice for the victims of the Rape of Nanking? Where is justice for those who are starving to death in Tahiti because of anti-competitive dumping practices? Where is the justice for those who are enslaved to work their entire lives in factories, only to be cast out once their usefulness is gone? Where is the justice? The answer is simple. There never was any.

Millions of people die from injustice every year, and there will never be justice for them because they, and those who care, do not have the means to bring justice. And those who do? They don't care.


Do they now? So okay, the victims of various genocidal movements - they were just weak, and the murderers were strong. Rape victims are just weak. Rapists are strong.

Thank you for agreeing with my statement. The physical reality cannot be denied. People become victims because they are weaker than the ones doing the victimization, no more, no less. In physical strength? Not necessarily, but in one way or another, they are weaker.

Does this excuse it? Hardly. But it's an observation of the reality of things. A reality that won't change unless you change humanity itself and it stops being humanity.


Having a social structure isn't quite the same thing as a natural imperative to commit genocide.

You're expecting rationality and reason in social structures. Hatred and prejudice runs stronger. Hatred and prejudice which is easier to manipulate by those who have or desire power, which will be used to commit injustice.

And even then, social structures are little more than an instinctive protective mechanism against the rule of the strong. Much like how fish join together in schools to ward off predators. But all that does is simply make it vulnerable to parasites who would take control of that structure for its own end, something which the social structure lends itself quite easily to, as history has shown.

And just to keep this on topic, it's why the status quo in the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't ever going to change. Nobody is interested in justice, at least, nobody who has the means of carrying it out.

Won't they be lonely arfter they've killed everyone in the whole world?

No they will still have themselves and their money.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan for that reason. Without any form of social contract that regulates human conduct, life would simply be "Nasty, Brutish, and Short".

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Even from the earliest times humans have had social taboos and customs, which are a sort of contract. Hunter gathers aren't genocidal. In fact, their entire social structure is based on sharing and cooperation.

So take your misconceptions and ignorance elsewhere.

This notion that somehow 'civilized' people are better, nicer, and less violent than non civilized people is laughable.

The way humans treat each other, we might as well be different species based on ethnicity, lineage, religion or just plain old geography.

The strong take what they want, the weak give in or die.



And even social animals have alphas who take the lions share of the spoils, or lead the pack/troop to attack others of the same species to secure food or territory. Humans aren't any different. All we did was just slapped on a few extra layers of what makes a pack/troop, and a few more tools as to how, but the core motivations and behaviors still remain.

It's way off topic, so at this point I'm just going to politely disagree with you and drop it.

It's way off topic, so at this point I'm just going to politely disagree with you and drop it.

Partially on topic, since it would also cover one of the reasons why the conflict between Israel and the Palestines aren't going to end anytime soon. The status quo is actually desirable for certain parties on both sides, since it guarantees their positions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Even from the earliest times humans have had social taboos and customs, which are a sort of contract. Hunter gathers aren't genocidal. In fact, their entire social structure is based on sharing and cooperation.

So take your misconceptions and ignorance elsewhere.

This notion that somehow 'civilized' people are better, nicer, and less violent than non civilized people is laughable.

I dunno, man...I saw that movie Apocalypto, and those savages were just wailing on one another.

And Mel Gibson, he understands people. He learned all about anthropology when he made those Mad Max movies.

Partially on topic, since it would also cover one of the reasons why the conflict between Israel and the Palestines aren't going to end anytime soon.

You're backing away from this:

And just to keep this on topic, it's why the status quo in the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't ever going to change. Nobody is interested in justice, at least, nobody who has the means of carrying it out.

There's a big difference between "won't ever change" and "isn't going to end soon."
The first is wrong: it has changed already and that's enough to debunk it as eternal fact.
The second is right, but only by defining progress as "suddenly becoming all puppies and rainbows."

If your response to contemplating tragedy is to normalize it as "human nature" then knock yourself out. I have a more optimistic bent, I believe solutions are possible, even if only partial solutions, even tricks to minimize harm without resolving the cause. Waiting out conflict, trying to keep a lid on it until it cools, will always get my vote over final solutions of killing.

"It was ever thus" just doesn't work for me. Letting the worst of human behaviour be the truth of it, and the vast bulk of observable human nature, people living peacefully and on good terms with each other, no more than the silence of the oppressed ... I can't even see why you would want to see humanity including yourself that way.

"That's the truth of it" you will probably say. Fine, hold to a belief which leaves no option for yourself but to ruthlessly trample others or be ruthlessly trampled. Count me out.

The status quo is actually desirable for certain parties on both sides, since it guarantees their positions.

Sure. It's the assertion that the power always rests, and will always rest, with the ruthless and selfish that I disagree with. The very foundation of Israel (mistake though I hold it to be) shows that isn't so: what Zionist army enforced that?

Of course what they should do is play loud music outside the settlements with Western Media and\or other countries watching costantly. The settlers won't be able to send out someone to stop them and they'll never sleep again.

While there is a campaign to issue cameras to Palestinians targeted by Settlers, this is to highlight their plight. Fanatics tend not to be too pushed what the goyim/infidel think of them.

Every 3 seconds a child in Africa dies, let's say it took you 5 minutes to write this thread and find the links. That's 100 children dead, yet in this, 5 died. It doesn't seem like much of a loss. People need to focus on the real tragedies which are happening around the world, like AIDs, instead of pumping billions into rockets and weapons to fire and make the situation even worse.

You're backing away from this:


I don't get your meaning.


There's a big difference between "won't ever change" and "isn't going to end soon."
The first is wrong: it has changed already and that's enough to debunk it as eternal fact.

What sort of change are we talking about? Minor fluctuations in the course of history are expected, but nothing really different (like real peace) is likely to happen barring literally a Deus Ex Machina. None of the parties involved or their backers have any real reason (humanitarian reasons are not real reasons in realpolitik terms), to support an end to the hostilities and the creation of a fair and peaceful arrangement.


The second is right, but only by defining progress as "suddenly becoming all puppies and rainbows."

Suddenly? No, my opinions were formed by taking the long view. You might progress with technology and society, in some ways, but humanity isn't going to drop its tendencies for senseless squabbling and bloodshed for any number of reasons in the foreseeable future.

We're no different than any other kind of social animal fighting another pack over territory and resources. We might be worse even, since we invent reasons for going to war that don't even include those two.


If your response to contemplating tragedy is to normalize it as "human nature" then knock yourself out.

Ever since prehistoric man has figured out that it was easier to bash his neighbors head in with a rock and take his food and women than find his own, that sort of mentality has stayed with humanity and will continue to do so. The only difference these days is that there are several more layers of deniability.

Now it's not some caveman bashing his neighbors head in, but a man pressing a button to launch a missile, or a business strategy to collapse a nations agriculture with dumping practices, or send out armies to conquer land and take their territory or a dirty little secret funding guerrilla groups to topple their government and commit atrocities so they can get favorable trade, or heck, executives telling industrial plant managers to cut safety measures and wages while working their near slave status employees double shifts just so they can increase their profitability.

And of course, all this happens with the implicit approval of the masses who support them, because the suffering and the killing happens far away, and is hidden from view.

And in the case of Israel and Palestine, it's simply the act of dehumanizing coupled with desire for revenge/land/etc. It's not humans they're killing. It's the enemy. Faceless things that might have human shape and voices, but not really human. So killing them is like killing vermin. Not to be given thought to. And besides, they have land that 'belongs to them' (settler mentality).

The tools have changed, but the mentality has never gone away.


Waiting out conflict, trying to keep a lid on it until it cools, will always get my vote over final solutions of killing.

Neither options have really been proven to work in all of human history, at least if the objective was amicable peace and not total destruction/capitulation/subjugation of one side.

Providing a parity of strength that ensures total destruction of both sides in the event of conflict however, has a historical precedent of keeping open peace, although both parties have usually tried to squirm their ways around it.


"It was ever thus" just doesn't work for me. Letting the worst of human behaviour be the truth of it, and the vast bulk of observable human nature, people living peacefully and on good terms with each other, no more than the silence of the oppressed ... I can't even see why you would want to see humanity including yourself that way.

"That's the truth of it" you will probably say. Fine, hold to a belief which leaves no option for yourself but to ruthlessly trample others or be ruthlessly trampled. Count me out.

Your choice. Human nature is guided by two things. Desire and reality. Desires are tailored by reality (most times). And reality shows that ruthlessness and force often yields what is desired the fastest and easiest.


Sure. It's the assertion that the power always rests, and will always rest, with the ruthless and selfish that I disagree with. The very foundation of Israel (mistake though I hold it to be) shows that isn't so: what Zionist army enforced that?

The first steps to Israels (as per the Balfour Declaration) formation by conquest of Palestine, using unsurprisingly, a Zionist army comprised of volunteer Jewish battalions. Later on, the formation of terror organizations like the Irgun who were also drawn into conflict with the British and used terrorist favorites like hotel bombings in order to force the British to abandon the Palestinian mandate. There were reasons for it, yes, some even might be valid, but the acts were ruthless.

So yes. Power lies with the ruthless. Always has been, always will be.

Every 3 seconds a child in Africa dies, let's say it took you 5 minutes to write this thread and find the links. That's 100 children dead, yet in this, 5 died. It doesn't seem like much of a loss. People need to focus on the real tragedies which are happening around the world, like AIDs, instead of pumping billions into rockets and weapons to fire and make the situation even worse.

The difference, Riopo, is that, with all the good intent in the world, there's basically sweet fuck all we can do about Africa. We're looking for a cure about as fast as is humanly possible, and the governments of the region are most of the rest of the problem - and we tried solving that. It was called colonialism, and it really didn't help much long term.

The Israel/Palestine fight suffers from the opposite problem - too MANY well-meaning but mostly clueless people and governments sticking their oar in. If we stopped poking both sides and trying to justify our own agendas they might actually get some resolution here one way or another.

Palestinians better get back to bargining table or there will be none left. They are out manned, out gunned, out funded, and out smarted. Israel got the leader of Hamas again and most of his wives and children.



"While keeping up the military pressure, Israel also appears to be offering an opening for the intense diplomatic efforts, saying it would consider a halt to the fighting if international monitors were brought in to track compliance with any truce with Hamas. " - AP

The difference, Riopo, is that, with all the good intent in the world, there's basically sweet fuck all we can do about Africa.

Oh - I don't know. The funds that go into the "war on terror" for instance would no doubt help somewhat.
What is a more efficient way to spend X billion US dollars: save a million African lives with great certainty or prevent a theoretical terrorist attack that could kill.. say.. 500 Americans.

Oh - I don't know. The funds that go into the "war on terror" for instance would no doubt help somewhat.
What is a more efficient way to spend X billion US dollars: save a million African lives with great certainty or prevent a theoretical terrorist attack that could kill.. say.. 500 Americans.

The problem being, that the X billion US dollars would probably ACTUALLY go to enriching fifty African dictators.

As long as the situation remains as it is in Africa, throwing money at the problem will not help. And ultimately the situation is only resolvable by the Africans.

I don't get your meaning.

You put your position more strongly to another poster than to me. "The Israel/Gaza situation won't ever change" is too strong a statement ... I guess I'm flattered that you didn't try to defend that against me.

What sort of change are we talking about? Minor fluctuations in the course of history are expected, but nothing really different (like real peace) is likely to happen barring literally a Deus Ex Machina. None of the parties involved or their backers have any real reason (humanitarian reasons are not real reasons in realpolitik terms), to support an end to the hostilities and the creation of a fair and peaceful arrangement.

Humanitarian reasons are real reasons. There is opposition within Israel to the use of military force. This opposition is minimized by keeping the humanitarian supplies flowing. It's minimized by naming the targets who are bombed, and by the constant refrain that Hamas members at home with their families are "hiding behind human shields."

If bombs were the only source of power, there would be no need for the ruthless holders of all power to compromise like this. They'd just kill the million-odd Gazans and be done with it. But actually they can't do that, and not just because other nations would intervene. Because the opposition to it (compassionate, reasonable Israelis) would instantly swell to a majority, as reflected in the Knesset, and the decision would be countermanded before it had gone on one day.

Israel is a democracy, and while individual politicians and opinion-makers may have some discretion in enforcing and forming the public will, they are not the cabal of "the powerful" which you think determines everything in their own selfish interests.

I notice that again, you set the goalposts of refutation in an impossible position to make your absolutist position seem right, and any other factors like compassion or altruism futile. "The creation of a fair and peaceful arrangement" may be beyond moderate forces, but progress -- fairer if not entirely fair, more peaceful if not entirely peaceful -- is possible.


Suddenly? No, my opinions were formed by taking the long view. You might progress with technology and society, in some ways, but humanity isn't going to drop its tendencies for senseless squabbling and bloodshed for any number of reasons in the foreseeable future.

I'm not claiming that the future is or can be free of conflict, despite your repeated characterizations thus.

You're the one making an absolutist claim (that only ruthless violence prospers.) Yes, war features heavily in history -- but soldiers need food as well as bullets. Technology makes possible more devastating weapons, but it makes possible more food, better clothes, houses, entertainments. Without the fruits of peace, there would be nothing to fight FOR.

War may be unavoidable, I don't know. But I do know that peace is unavoidable too. If the only significant factor in history was the ruthless enforcement of the will of one over another, we'd either all be dead, or spread so thinly that we'd never meet another person, to kill or be killed by.

War is destruction, and it can't happen without something to destroy. Children raised to fighting age, wealth to plunder, food from the fields. War is a blight, but it's a blight on a growing and healthy thing: human society.

We're no different than any other kind of social animal fighting another pack over territory and resources. We might be worse even, since we invent reasons for going to war that don't even include those two.

Competition over territory and resources need not be the ultimate contest of one life or the other. Even in war it is not -- prisoners are taken, often a class of people is allowed to be neutral, for instance children. War is humanity at it's least just, but even in war there is some justice.

Yes, the Rape of Nanking happened. Strategically, it was a mistake, attracting the attention of greater powers than Japan, bringing the oil embargo which drove Japan to attack a great power which eventually defeated it. When you point to the worst of human history, and say "this is how it is in reality, the iron fist inside the velvet glove" try to remember the wars which were lost, remember the times that ruthlessness has not only not prospered, but in fact been a catastrophe for those who pursued it as the route to power.

Ever since prehistoric man has figured out that it was easier to bash his neighbors head in with a rock and take his food and women than find his own,

only it isn't, always.

that sort of mentality has stayed with humanity and will continue to do so. The only difference these days is that there are several more layers of deniability.


I don't deny that violence can prosper. I deny that it is the ONLY thing which prospers.

If "men bashing their neighbour's head in with a rock and taking his food" was the only workable strategy, there would be no food to take.

Now it's not some caveman bashing his neighbors head in, but a man pressing a button to launch a missile, or a business strategy to collapse a nations agriculture with dumping practices, or send out armies to conquer land and take their territory or a dirty little secret funding guerrilla groups to topple their government and commit atrocities so they can get favorable trade, or heck, executives telling industrial plant managers to cut safety measures and wages while working their near slave status employees double shifts just so they can increase their profitability.

And of course, all this happens with the implicit approval of the masses who support them, because the suffering and the killing happens far away, and is hidden from view.

Yes, I somewhat agree with you here. The human urge to justice can be short-circuited more easily at a distance, by economics and by technology. Easier to mistreat another if you can't see their face, don't hear their children crying in the night.

And certainly, abstractions like nations or causes are harder to judge for justice or injustice, than two individuals you see and hear as they conflict.

And in the case of Israel and Palestine, it's simply the act of dehumanizing coupled with desire for revenge/land/etc. It's not humans they're killing. It's the enemy. Faceless things that might have human shape and voices, but not really human. So killing them is like killing vermin. Not to be given thought to. And besides, they have land that 'belongs to them' (settler mentality).

You have almost come around to saying "humans have a sense of justice" when you make this point, that it is easier to mistreat another if you see them as less than human. Dehumanizing them.


The tools have changed, but the mentality has never gone away.

Again! Yet again, you set an impossible standard for any counter-argument to your primacy of ruthlessness. The urge need not "go away" to be counterbalanced by other urges.

I could as well say: even in times of war, the desire for justice does not go away. Justice becomes far more difficult, injustice outweighs it perhaps, but it's still there.

Neither options have really been proven to work in all of human history, at least if the objective was amicable peace and not total destruction/capitulation/subjugation of one side.

Of course they have. Evenly matched opponents have made peace and drawn the borders back where they were, stronger parties have made concessions (eg to terrorists.)

All wars end some time, and not always with subjugation. When it comes right down to it, subjugation is better than total obliteration and there comes a time when it's not worth fighting any more. Genocide of the defeated is the exception, not the rule, of war.

Providing a parity of strength that ensures total destruction of both sides in the event of conflict however, has a historical precedent of keeping open peace, although both parties have usually tried to squirm their ways around it.

The problem with applying that in Gaza, though, is that by that standard not only every country in the world but every insurgency of that kind of size (1 to 2 million people) would be armed with cluster bombs and nukes. That wouldn't end well.

What you are talking about, in the historical precedent, are big powers or at least big in their region. It might work for two countries, but multilaterally it doesn't so much. You get the Great War.

Your choice. Human nature is guided by two things. Desire and reality. Desires are tailored by reality (most times). And reality shows that ruthlessness and force often yields what is desired the fastest and easiest.

Human nature is what you want it to be! If you see the reality of it as ruthless competition, you will adjust your behaviour to prosper in a society of such people. You'll break laws if you can get away with it, never let another back out of a bad deal they made, screw people over in the expectation that they'd do the same to you in your position. And lo and behold, around you will be a society of ruthless competition because other people will treat you the same way in response.

But as you say: your choice.

The first steps to Israels (as per the Balfour Declaration) formation by conquest of Palestine, using unsurprisingly, a Zionist army comprised of volunteer Jewish battalions. Later on, the formation of terror organizations like the Irgun who were also drawn into conflict with the British and used terrorist favorites like hotel bombings in order to force the British to abandon the Palestinian mandate. There were reasons for it, yes, some even might be valid, but the acts were ruthless.

But they weren't "the powerful." They did not have the power to take Palestine by force. The power to do so came from Britain through the agency of the League of Nations.

So yes. Power lies with the ruthless. Always has been, always will be.

Which terrorist organization are you a member of then? Or are you satisfied to be powerless?

If we go with the whole 'israel has to give back what was the palestine's homes' etc. then america looks like a total hypocrite for kicking out the Indians

I mean, take this situation,

Cuba decides that it is done putting up with the US embargo and hate. They decide to begin launching dozens of rockets daily into the Flordia Keys, is anybody gonna second guess the US decision to invade?

Or how bout this for the Aussies, Tasmania gets taken over in a coup and begins hitting the south coast of Victoria with rockets every single day? How would you feel if someone said you shouldn't go down there and kick out these terrorists?

What if Ireland went really crazy and started rocketing the UK? If Sicily went after Italy? The list goes on. I am not saying that I fully support Israeli tactics, nor am I denying Palestine the right to exist, that's a lot bigger argument than I want to start, but I just want to point out the hippocracy(sp) of the amount of scrutiny that is going on over this conflict and that Bush is actually right on this one, Hamas has become nothing but a terror group.



MODEDIT: Merged; duplicate topic.

Cuba decides that it is done putting up with the US embargo and hate. They decide to begin launching dozens of rockets daily into the Flordia Keys, is anybody gonna second guess the US decision to invade?

If George Bush was still President? Hell yeah they would...


Or how bout this for the Aussies, Tasmania gets taken over in a coup and begins hitting the south coast of Victoria with rockets every single day? How would you feel if someone said you shouldn't go down there and kick out these terrorists?

The Australians could nuke Vatican City and nobody would be offended, we all love aussies!


What if Ireland went really crazy and started rocketing the UK?

The IRA?


If Sicily went after Italy? The list goes on. I am not saying that I fully support Israeli tactics, nor am I denying Palestine the right to exist, that's a lot bigger argument than I want to start, but I just want to point out the hippocracy(sp) of the amount of scrutiny that is going on over this conflict and that Bush is actually right on this one, Hamas has become nothing but a terror group.

I agree, Hamas is a glorified terrorist group, however... people can argue against Isreal because the whole truth at the very beginning of it all, is that the Isrealies started it 60 some odd years ago.

the toll is now somewhere between 300 and 400 gazan's. (and somewhat less then a tenth of that number of israellies) what's newsworthy is israel's continuing to refuse to allow news media to do their job in the regeon.

the toll is now somewhere between 300 and 400 gazan's. (and somewhat less then a tenth of that number of israellies) what's newsworthy is israel's continuing to refuse to allow news media to do their job in the regeon.Normally when something like this happens, Israel is simultaneously conducting evil things in the West Bank. What is it this time? Are Palestinian homes demolished or is a new piece of the Wall/Fence set up far inside Palestinian area?

I just want to know where this magical 100 year thing came from. o_0;
Unless I'm off on a completely different subject. Or I'm misinformed, or something. I have no idea, but I don't know where this 100 year thing came from.
62 years =/= 100 years....

Pardon me, but didn't Israel come into being in 1947? United Nations resolution, splitting the land left by a British colony into two states, Palestinian and Israeli? Arab nations surrounding the fledgling state said, "No fucking way," and attacked it, Israel fought back and has been fighting back since 1948?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Just post some quotes from the Israeli government:

We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all
fours."
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.



"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

Look at how the Israelis treat their own Arab citizens. I had to give a presentation on Israeli Arabs, and the stigmas placed on them were next to Jim Crow laws for the Negro in America, or for the (ironically) Jew in early Nazi Germany. Its clear that the Israeli gov't only want their own kind in that area. They are among the foremost of the world's terrorists.
Do you have any quotations that aren't over twenty five years old to base your argument on?

thats not what im saying at all, i think we need to find a way to get the peace procces going and that would involve the palestinians
Right. You've obviously missed all the involvement of the UN, and of Western countries, in trying to get the peace process going... oh and other Middle Eastern nations like Egypt... and the hundreds of peace negotiations... and the fact that each time the peace is broken...

Unfortunate part of any war is that people get killed.

What an arrogant thing to say.

No, just an unfortunate fact.

I suggest everyone read about the founding of Israel (terrorism against the Brits, etc..), and about its history from all sides, not merely those in power. To learn more of their treachery, read what the captain and survivors of the USS Liberty had to say about Israel's attack on them and the subsequent cover up by traitors in our own government. Read all about AIPAC and Israel's numerous spies from non-Christian Zionist points of view. Learn for yourself. Investigate.
Israel was founded on terrorism, but we now call them freedom fighters, even after the initial and continued ethnic cleansing in the name of continuing to take more and more land. This occurred well before what we know as "Islamic extremism." They escape a holocaust, then turn right around and perpetrate one against simple farmers.
Respect? I have none for them because I am informed. I hereby cut off all the billions in foreign aid being funneled into making more weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism is a tactic, and what ye sow, ye reap. It takes courage to stand up to bullies and I commend the Palestinian people for their long suffering.
If this is deleted, it is because if you can't say it, it is true.

Kelticka out.
Deleted by whom? and for what purpose?
Paranoid much?

Am I the only one who noticed they're carrying that body in a large Hamas flag in that picture?

I don't support Isreal or Palestine. Isreal shouldn't exist in the first place, and Palestine would be equivalent to Darfur after a while with Sunni-Shiite fighting.

Pardon me, but didn't Israel come into being in 1947? United Nations resolution, splitting the land left by a British colony into two states, Palestinian and Israeli?
Yup. It's amusing that it came into being though international law - the same law the state flouts and refuses to adhere to this day.

Arab nations surrounding the fledgling state said, "No fucking way,"
Is that really surprising though? Even taking the "Arab" and "Israel" out of the issue, when one place suddenly becomes a country after terroristic and militaristic activity, it's neighbours don't normally react that well.

and the fact that each time the peace is broken...
Broken by both sides.

Broken by both sides.
I thought that by not naming either side as an aggressor, both sides was clear in the statement.

Edutainment in the debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_n_154211.html)

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski offers his expertise on the conflict in Gaza, while Joe Scarborough... well, let's just say he's not a good host, but he makes for awkward entertainment.:wink:

War is shitty and this story proves it. The problem here rests in the hands of Hamas. They continued to rocket Israel. What did they expect?
Just what happens.

They're as pleased with the death of Palestinians as the Israeli are - after all, it brings them more supporters.

You try, but fail to see. I said humanitarian reasons are not real reasons as far as realpolitik goes

and I did not take the bait. I will remain focussed on this example, and on history as written. "Realpolitik" is an ideological term which deliberately excludes justice, or any other ideals which in fact do motivate politicians and people in general. Asserting "in realpolitik, ruthlessness is the quickest and most effective way to reach ends" may be true, but why should I care? I don't accept that realpolitik is an accurate representation of how decisions are made or history formed. You present a circular argument.

You have no answer to my assertion that Israel is a democracy, and is therefore limited in how ruthless it can be with Gaza. Not only the world community of nations, but the Israeli people themselves would reject any proposal for unbridled ruthlessness.

because it is never sufficient reason to commit to anything. That's why neither the United Nations nor any individual nation ever spends money or sends troops to protect powerless minorities or to relieve suffering.

Oh, wait ...

What happens is political reasons instead. Out and out genocide would not ensure their continued political power, so they don't. But maintaining the Palestinians as a bogey man every time their support drops as a quick fix by bombing and slow drip conquest is beneficial to them, so they do that instead.

So this is what your "power comes from ruthlessness" thesis is reduced to. Whatever happens is "realpolitik" and when it doesn't appear to be, that's because the "real" power-holders are tricking everybody.

And when someone in power tries to balance the situation, he gets killed by the ruthless ones instead.

If you're referring to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, then yes that's an example of ruthlessness succeeding. Generally, assassination either achieves nothing or by the matyr effect, achieves the opposite of its intent. It's unfortunate that Rabin was the only leader who the politically aware in Israel would trust to make peace without giving too much away. For a cause to be so dependent on an individual is a mistake -- it happened also in Pakistan, where Benazir Bhutto was similarly indispensible by virtue of whose wife she'd been.

Then show me this fairer, more peaceful progress. The only condition I attach is that you must show it isn't just a quick fix which is a feel good facade that degrades not long after.

Let's go big-scale: the Cold War. How could such a standoff end with anything less than the obliteration and conquest of one party by the other? Yet it did. By the quite rational realization that obliteration of either party would serve neither. Pick examples of injustices within that if you will (the corruption of asset sales, or the poverty of freed republics) but you'd be pissing into the wind to say that an all-out conflict would have been a better resolution.

Or let's go small-scale: the end of the troubles in Ireland. The terrorists of Northern Ireland didn't get all they wanted (reunification with Ireland and/or the expulsion of Protestants) but they got enough to effectively end the conflict. You can assert, if you dare, that the solution is a "feel good façade" but I refuse to accept the onus of proof.

It's not me putting the absolutist position that ruthlessness is the only route to power. Right from the beginning, I have conceded that ruthlessness has its place and its time, but that it is just one approach among many and can be disastrous. As the only guiding factor in a bid for power, in the absence of some heridatary privelege to empower it, ruthlessness is a very poor strategy for a young person. It leads to jail, if you're lucky.

The fruits of peace are usually driven by the specter of war and it's two tag alongs, famine, and plague. And when they aren't, they are pressed to such purposes at need. There is a saying. If you desire peace, prepare for war. If you do not, then someone who has will take your peace.

What nonsense. The fruits of peace are driven by the work of farmers in their fields, by the love of parents for their children, by the sense of beauty expressed in a cosy home and a rose bed. With people all around you working for what they want, leading mostly-happy lives and avoiding conflict ... you insist that none of this would happen except to fund the war-machine.

The only truth in it is that the fear of war, of losing the fields and the children and the pretty roses, requires a peace-loving people to give some of their wealth to national defence. Defence, sir, not offence. Not bashing their neighbour over the head with a rock to take all their goodies, but having a rock to bash back with if it happens to them.

You misuse the saying "If you want peace, prepare for war" when you assert that "preparing for war" -- national defence -- means actually going to war. The idea is, if you can make war disastrous for a rival, you never need to fight them, and can have peace instead of war.

Peace is the breather period between the constant of war. Existence itself revolves around conflict.

The vast majority of people alive today are living in peace. The vast majority of people throughout history have lived in peace. Yes, war when it happens is an intense experience, the soldiers and the residents of the land where they fight carry scars their entire life. Yes, war put most national borders where they are now, yes, war has drastically affected the fate of cultures and ethnicities -- but to call peace nothing more than preparation for war is quite simply wrong. What people do in peace is plainly founded in their personal interest (including supporting their country's armed forces) and to say it serves no end other than to prepare for a war that almost every one of them will find tragic and horrible ... words fail me. How can you possibly believe that? Do you, yourself, work or romance or watch movies only to bring about a war?

To the second sentence: conflict, peaceful conflict like debating, or economic conflict like striking for your union or trying to beat out a colleague for a promotion, is worlds away from the destructive conflict of war. In war, even the winner suffers -- in peaceful conflict (competition) it is possible for both sides to benefit.

Nor is conflict central to existence. The gratification of urges is central to existence, and more or less conflict necessary to achieve that gratification, depending on the society and the age a person lives in. And indeed the person: to many, knowing that they harm another is enough to drain any activity of it's satisfaction.

And your idea that the population would be so low in the event of such ruthlessness falls apart at the consideration of countries like Africa. Underdeveloped, massively oppressed, torn apart by warlords, but having a very high birth rate.

Sara Palin, is that you? :tongue:
"My idea" was a reductio ad absurdum of your thesis that power rests only with the ruthless. It goes like this: if only ruthlessness (use of lethal force to achieve even small gains for the ruthless person) gains power, then among the ruthless would be the ultimate winners, and their strategy would always be to shoot first. The "ruthless capitalist" would not survive, nor the warlord. Only the individual killer, and only so many of them that they would never meet another.

No. War is taking something from someone else, and destroying those who stand in your way.

The destruction is the only constant. Punitive strikes are war, but they take no loot -- in fact, they cost the punisher at least the price of the bombs they drop.

Some wars are even more senseless. Iran and Iraq fought for ten years, and neither side ever stood a chance of recouping their losses, even with oil under the contested land.

Prisoners can be of use in war as resources or to help repopulate seized lands. But prisoners are not necessarily needed in war, of which quite a few in history have gone on with total slaughter of the population.

But prisoners are often taken anyway, though feeding them and guarding them is generally more effort than can be made up as "resources" (forced labour.)

As for your claim that ruthlessness leads to catastrophe, only when it goes against someone who is both stronger and just as, if not more, ruthless, than you are. Japan lost, indisputably, but without the ruthlessness of extermination and removal visited upon the native American populations so as to take their lands and resources, or Stalins brutal reorganization and industrialization of the USSR under his iron fist, neither country would be strong enough to defeat Japan.

You brought up Stalin, not me. A large part of why the Soviet Union did so poorly against Germany at first was exactly Stalin's purges. His "ruthlessness" may have protected the rule of Communism -- more likely it was to protect his own position from military coup -- but it certainly did not serve the interests of the country. It weakened the Red Army at just the wrong time.

Predators and prey. More prey than predators, but the predators will always be on top. Man might think "Let's work together" and reap the benefits, but someone will think "Let's not, I'll just take what you've got since you're all working together already".

Right. That's why crime prospers so well. The pitiful attempts of the vast majority to protect themselves with law enforcement doesn't work at all, does it? It's the murderers and rapists who run everything, and the rest of us are rotting in jail.

Not.

So you see, justice is tossed out the window for conveniences sake. Anyone might see injustice when their in the mud, but once they are in the ivory tower, they are all for injustice, as long as it happens out of sight, and keeps them in the ivory tower.

An ivory tower is a theory which can't be tested. Not a luxurious palace, as you seem to be using the term. Anyway ...

You're wrong. The rule of law within one country, is an attempt to codify the personal sense of justice and apply it universally, not just to some hypothetical powerful elite who want protection.

International law attempts to regulate the behaviour of countries the same way ... and even in its infancy (unless you count the Pax Romana I guess, subject nations restrained from fighting to keep from wasting the wealth they could pay in tribute) the United Nations has had some success in preventing wars.

Peace is a compelling common good, whether it is brought about by nations arming themselves or by an over-arching government-of-governments. It won't surprise you that I'm in favour of the latter, just as I'm in favour of well-funded and effective law enforcement over citizens enforcing their own conception of justice with their own gun.

Oh, I'm not denying that they might have a sense of it, but that only applies to those within their... monkeysphere, I believe that was the term.
A hypothetical limit to the number of others one individual can care about.
Justice for themselves, for their friends and ethnic group.
Family and friends are compatible with the concept of a monkeysphere. But not an ethnic group -- usually too numerous for that, and furthermore largely not known personally to the individual. Anyone who stands up for or defends their ethnic group is applying an abstraction of justice away from that personal "caring about your monkeys."
But not for anybody else. And then it stops being justice, and starts being all about supremacy of one group over another.
It just becomes a more complicated form of justice. It needs to be abstracted into law.
And the injustice of a vast number against some other vast number, the conflict of nations, needs to be dealt with by the same means: the peaceable majority forming and enforcing laws to protect all nations from military aggression. You are obliged to find it futile, since it is justice (of nations, not of individuals). I will say it has a long way to go, but there has been progress. The United States or Russia, for instance, can and do invade other countries, but they are restricted from entirely subjugating them, turning their people into slaves and stealing all their resources -- the nearest they come to that is setting up puppet governments and maintaining military dominance. We don't sack Carthage any more, and Israel does not level Gaza.


And here is where my argument lies. Thank you for agreeing with me.

If that's where your argument lies, you have changed it. I say that yes, ruthlessness can prosper ... and you claim that was your argument. Not so. Your claim was that only ruthlessness prospers. That without ruthlessness, visiting grief on others to force their compliance, no-one has power.

You extended it, even, into the claim that it is always easier to bash your neighbour over the head and take their food (and women? What century are you living in??) than it is to grow food or trade some other valuable thing for it in a more just way.

If law does not protect the poor from being cheated and forced to accept a bad bargain by threat of violence ... then let's look at extending law to cross national boundaries, since the oppressors largely use their economic power across national boundaries. Not just give in to such injustice! Not just say "that's how its always been." Particularly, when that is NOT how it always is.


Keeping a lid on things have worked? Where?

Why, wherever there is conflict but not war. The many separatist movements around the world, which did not win all their claims -- a sovereign nation -- but settle for a lesser degree of regional autonomy. Northern Ireland would be an example.

Or the freeing of slaves throughout the British Empire, and the contemporaneous European empires. Complete justice is impossible, you can't undo a crime. Compensation would be juster than simple emancipation -- yet emancipation sufficed. There is still ill-will, ex-slaves in a lot of cases are still disadvantaged within their current nations ... but it's not open war.

Or compare South Africa with Zimbabwe. Forgiveness towards the white minority who oppressed them for so long has worked far better in SA, than ruthless revenge has in Zimbabwe.

Whenever conflict happens, it always ends when either both sides realize that they cannot make any gains over the other or they no longer have the will to continue conflict.

Or you could as well say, ruthlessness meets reality.


It might even end with a mass culling of humanity, clearly demonstrating the inability of the vast majority of it to co-exist with each other, even if it meant their extinction.

I cannot really say that such mentality deserves continued existence if it is so willing to write itself out of history.

Yep, that's the bottom line of your view of the primacy of ruthlessness. "Mankind sucks and if they all die, no great loss." Not a very useful conclusion I think.

The Great War did not introduce the concepts of total war and mass extinction with no winners at all, so no, it doesn't work.

"Mass extinction" means just that: extinction of species. Lots of them. You misuse the term.

It is probably true that the Great War would have happened anyway without the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand. But what a glowing example of the failure of ruthlessness. Did it bring about anarchy? Fuck no, it brought about a war between (largely) conscripts, an extremity of the oppression of individuals to serve the needs of a government.

And when that war was over, were the winners proud of themselves? No. They took reparations, certainly, but these could never be enough to make the war worthwhile. Their attitude was "fuck, what a disaster, what can we do to keep it from happening again?" The result was the League of Nations, which failed in its intention to prevent future wars -- but the intention wouldn't even be there without a sense of justice, a sense that war is a bad thing to be avoided even by the eventual winners.

And once more to Gaza. There might not be much loot there, but by your rationale of war ("it's to get their stuff off them") Israel should take the land and kill the people. They don't. Explain that by your theory.

And unsurprisingly, the people who have risen to the very top are those who behave the way you've described. Because they all saw the best ways of gaining power and influence, or profit, and acted accordingly.
Circular argument. They "rise to the top" because their choices led to them getting to the top. Having defined ruthlessness as the route to power, you now turn around and say that whatever leads to power is ruthlessness.
Those who didn't, fell by the wayside.
Or simply didn't want to rule others to begin with. If you define "having lots of power and money" as the only legitimate route to happiness, of course you will see winners and losers and assume that the "losers" are unhappy.
If the only route to happiness is control over others, at their expense, it follows that only a tiny minority can ever be happy. At best, there would be two equally numerous classes, the slavers and the enslaved -- one happy, having their slave, and the other unhappy.
What a hopeless prospect. Why, why, would you close your eyes to the happiness of people all around you who oppress no-one, don't need power over others to get by?


How does this refute my point at all?

It was just a digression on the peculiarity of "human nature" as an objective truth. Individually, what we believe human nature to be is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No. They were ruthless. And by their ruthlessness, seized (and cajoled in some cases) the power they have today.

Their bombs and kidnappings played a part, demanding attention to their cause. But the terrorism did not win them Israel. It was the ruthlessness of the Nazis, really, which got for the Jews a reaction of generosity from the great powers, and got them their state.

Ruthlessness fails again. Nazi ruthlessness won the Zionists there own state.

If you equate ruthlessness with being a terrorist, then you have a skewed idea what ruthlessness is.

I should have put a smiley on that. But if you will take it seriously, then yes: the terrorist is the ideal example of ruthlessness without power, since they try to gain power by causing fear. Fear is a tiny fraction of submission, which is what ruthlessness WITH power seeks.

There is no justification for terror. There is no justification for war. There is no justification for both. This incident is a clear act of terror and injustice both from the oppressor and the oppressed. I cry with bitternes, not because of the militants involved in the war, but the aspiring futures of the innocents severely affected.

By digression on the peculiarity of human nature, what exactly do you mean?

There is no justification for terror. There is no justification for war. There is no justification for both. This incident is a clear act of terror and injustice both from the oppressor and the oppressed. I cry with bitternes, not because of the militants involved in the war, but the aspiring futures of the innocents severely affected.The oppressed do not engage in terror. They engage in defense and revenge.

Some powerful nation should declare war on Israel right away.

By digression on the peculiarity of human nature, what exactly do you mean?

Hi, noob. I assume that was addressed to me?

My point is this: any human who tries to define "human nature" does so from a subjective position. They are attempting to define themselves, from within what other humans have defined as "common knowledge." The vast bulk of what you or I or NAS know, we did not discover for ourselves. It is "common knowledge": the knowledge of others who came before us.

Written history will necessarily be a huge part of that. It has the virtue of being ancient as well as current. Our current concerns are largely to do with what is changing around us, we are concerned more by what changes year by year, because that is what we have some chance to affect. Beginning times are where an individual contribution matters most.

By writing a novel, or singing a song, or by taking our friends by the shoulders and pleading with them, we can perhaps change the mores, the accepted wisdom of our personal life-times. Whether that makes the history-book, whether our individual efforts really change the course of history, we are far less sure of. I would say, to concern yourself with your place in history is crippling: just do what you think you should do. Let history judge if it made any difference in that scale.

None of us, nor any scholar, is fit to judge human nature. You change it, though in minuscule amount, by doing it. By living a life.

Let others judge. And if they judge against you ... wth, you lived a life. That's enough.

The oppressed do not engage in terror. They engage in defense and revenge.

"The oppressed" are not a well defined class.

I should not have to explain that, to a bitter and contrary Lesbo who claims to be Happy. :tongue:

And: revenge is not legitimate. Harm to others, for no reason but personal satisfaction? And what's more, it carries the grudge. "You deserved it, you had it coming. You started it, I finished it, no comeback."

Revenge is the worst kind of hatred, it is hatred which rides on the back of injustice, spurs it on. Without forgiveness to blunt it, revenge would magnify the smallest crime into a universal melee, a bloodbath.

Some powerful nation should declare war on Israel right away.

Sure. Four Israelis die from rockets, so Israel kills several hundred Gazans. Justice demands that a "powerful nation" kills several thousand, or tens of thousands, or more, of the Israelis.

Let's return like with like, and if a hundred-to-one is their standard, let's give them that. Hell yeah, revenge rocks and who cares that we are all going to die?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Gandhi said. But we can do better, can't we? Let's take ten eyes for an eye, ourselves and our children included by the end of it. Fuck the human race, right, that they would tolerate such injustice. Better we all die.

Get a grip. It's Israel and the Palestinians. Progress is good. This shit again is par for the course. The abyss of global war over two small nations -- which is what you suggest -- is entirely unnecessary.

If it sounds like I'm saying "leave them to it" then I wish to correct that. Israel's actions right now, deserve condemnation. They don't deserve a global trade sanction, but possibly a sanction on the arms they are using to kill so many disproportionately for the crime of rocket attacks against Israel.

They most certainly do not deserve the tens of thousands of casualties which a "declaration of war" by a "major power" (Britain? Germany? Pakistan?) would visit apon their citizens.

Get a grip!

I was just reading in the New York post.

You spent ten minutes staring at a piece of shit?

I swear, the only reason that thing sells, is because its name is so similar to "The New York Times."

"The oppressed" are not a well defined class.

I should not have to explain that, to a bitter and contrary Lesbo who claims to be Happy. :tongue:

And: revenge is not legitimate. Harm to others, for no reason but personal satisfaction? And what's more, it carries the grudge. "You deserved it, you had it coming. You started it, I finished it, no comeback."

Revenge is the worst kind of hatred, it is hatred which rides on the back of injustice, spurs it on. Without forgiveness to blunt it, revenge would magnify the smallest crime into a universal melee, a bloodbath.



Sure. Four Israelis die from rockets, so Israel kills several hundred Gazans. Justice demands that a "powerful nation" kills several thousand, or tens of thousands, or more, of the Israelis.

Let's return like with like, and if a hundred-to-one is their standard, let's give them that. Hell yeah, revenge rocks and who cares that we are all going to die?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Gandhi said. But we can do better, can't we? Let's take ten eyes for an eye, ourselves and our children included by the end of it. Fuck the human race, right, that they would tolerate such injustice. Better we all die.

Get a grip. It's Israel and the Palestinians. Progress is good. This shit again is par for the course. The abyss of global war over two small nations -- which is what you suggest -- is entirely unnecessary.

If it sounds like I'm saying "leave them to it" then I wish to correct that. Israel's actions right now, deserve condemnation. They don't deserve a global trade sanction, but possibly a sanction on the arms they are using to kill so many disproportionately for the crime of rocket attacks against Israel.

They most certainly do not deserve the tens of thousands of casualties which a "declaration of war" by a "major power" (Britain? Germany? Pakistan?) would visit apon their citizens.

Get a grip!Get a grip? Jews have led an atrocious war of colonization against Palestine and its inhabitants for the past 90 years. They deserve the severest punishment for their deeds and attitude. Condemnation is definitely not enough, because it will not stop the colonization. They live on another people's land and they even boast about it. There is no reason why Tel Aviv should not burn like Dresden did. Btw Russia would do.

Get a grip? Jews have led an atrocious war of colonization against Palestine and its inhabitants for the past 90 years. They deserve the severest punishment for their deeds and attitude. Condemnation is definitely not enough, because it will not stop the colonization. They live on another people's land and they even boast about it. There is no reason why Tel Aviv should not burn like Dresden did. Btw Russia would do.

However, there is no good reason for any such thing. And a good thing it is - or else virtually every country in the developed world would "deserve" such an attack.

"Deserve" is a pointless and useless view. Nobody ever gets what they deserve, and no one ever will - because everyone has a different idea about what that is. You feel Israel "deserves" such an attack. I think you're full of shit and that Israel deserves nothing of the sort. We're both right.

If Hamas is so bent on peace, then why turn down international monitors other then because then they cant cheat by using tunnels?

If Hamas is so bent on peace, then why turn down international monitors other then because then they cant cheat by using tunnels?

Wut? :confused:

Wut? :confused:

One of Israels terms of ceasefire is the presence of on the ground international monitors to insure compliance and Hamas says no. What a suprise that Hamas doesnt want someone to have the ability to make them follow their own agreements.

One of Israels terms of ceasefire is the presence of on the ground international monitors to insure compliance and Hamas says no. What a suprise that Hamas doesnt want someone to have the ability to make them follow their own agreements.

The Israeli government and military want international 'monitors' in there but won't allow international journalists in (despite being ordered to by the Supreme Court, they still defy it).

Something's amiss there.

One of Israels terms of ceasefire is the presence of on the ground international monitors to insure compliance and Hamas says no. What a suprise that Hamas doesnt want someone to have the ability to make them follow their own agreements.

Monitors for the tunnels? Surely it's for the rocket launches?

Monitors for the tunnels? Surely it's for the rocket launches?

Same thing ultimately. Its where they are coming from.

The Israeli government and military want international 'monitors' in there but won't allow international journalists in (despite being ordered to by the Supreme Court, they still defy it).

Something's amiss there.
Because they know HAMAS won't agree to monitors and thus look like the bad guy, no one will think twice about questioning Israel why they won't let in journalist. It's all because it will be stories about how Israel is dropping bombs on mosques, refugee camps, and residential areas because HAMAS did some property damage to an apartment building somewhere with a lawn dart they call a rocket (Hamas hits an apartment and there are only two non-serious injuries that result? Sounds fishy to me)

Same thing ultimately. Its where they are coming from.

I'm pretty sure that rockets require air space to fire. I'm also pretty sure that one of the requirements for a tunnel is lack of air space.

Because they know HAMAS won't agree to monitors and thus look like the bad guy, no one will think twice about questioning Israel why they won't let in journalist. It's all because it will be stories about how Israel is dropping bombs on mosques, refugee camps, and residential areas because HAMAS did some property damage to an apartment building somewhere with a lawn dart they call a rocket (Hamas hits an apartment and there are only two non-serious injuries that result? Sounds fishy to me)

Qassam rockets have an explosives payload of about ten kilos. It's not a lawn dart, if it hits an apartment building it'll punch through a wall easily. If it hits a person, or hits near a person, that person is dead. They're perfectly lethal, they're just long range weapons with no guidance system and as such are effectively worthless.

Monitors for the tunnels? Surely it's for the rocket launches?

and what about the monitors to monitor the monitors in the tunnels?

I'm pretty sure that rockets require air space to fire. I'm also pretty sure that one of the requirements for a tunnel is lack of air space.

I didnt expect id have to spell it out but the tunnels are the source of the components of the rockets if not rockets in whole. There are hundreds of tunnels under the border and are a primary source of smuggled weapons.

Qassam rockets have an explosives payload of about ten kilos. It's not a lawn dart, if it hits an apartment building it'll punch through a wall easily. If it hits a person, or hits near a person, that person is dead.
Yet they've managed to kill 1 person and non-seriously wound maybe half a dozen with the last few thousand rockets?

Actually, I suspect the "hundreds" is a deliberate overemphasis by both HAMAS and Israel (one as propaganda and one as "enhancing" a threat). But there's no doubt there are quite a few.

Yet they've managed to kill 1 person and non-seriously wound maybe half a dozen with the last few thousand rockets?

The Qassam is basically an unguided projectile, roughly similar to the rocket artillery used in the Napoleonic wars, or just a little more advanced. You point it in a general direction and make sure you aren't standing in the 180 degree arc it will (probably) fly somewhere in.

No actual military would use it because it's basically ineffective barring sheer luck. But it's cheap, and simple enough for uneducated, disposable rocketeers to manage.

The Qassam is basically an unguided projectile, roughly similar to the rocket artillery used in the Napoleonic wars, or just a little more advanced. You point it in a general direction and make sure you aren't standing in the 180 degree arc it will (probably) fly somewhere in.

No actual military would use it because it's basically ineffective barring sheer luck. But it's cheap, and simple enough for uneducated, disposable rocketeers to manage.

They should obviously switch to more dangerous weapons - like catapults.

They should obviously switch to more dangerous weapons - like catapults.

The deal is that the rockets have to be quick set up, quick point, quick fire and quick dismantle if at all and bail out of the neighborhood fast. There isnt time for NASA to whip off a count down or two and a systems check.

They should obviously switch to more dangerous weapons - like catapults.

They'd be far more likely to hit their targets. And a large Trebuchet has a remarkably long range...

snip

http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/qassam.jpg
QUASSAM ROKET


http://www.jarts-lawndarts.com/images/jp-440_king_lawn_dart_mint__20.00.jpg
LAWN DART


http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2008/12/29/APTOPIX_MIDEAST_ISRAE_Lea_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec8653055db7939
"PROPERTY DAMAGE"


http://www.weaselhut.net/20080806-210145-pic-817163039.jpg
... and I suppose you'd call this a "lawn dart collection"? (actually it is the remains of exploded rockets launched into Israel by Hamas)


LOL@U :rolleyes:

MOD EDIT - That bottom image was much too large. Reduced the size for you. It's now available in a compact, fuel efficient version.

*snip page breaking pictures*

... and I suppose you'd call this a "lawn dart collection"?


LOL@U :rolleyes:

I set of more advanced 'weapory' on bonfire night.

I set of more advanced 'weapory' on bonfire night.
Not funny and quite ignorant. U Phail.

Not funny. Phail.

Wasn't meant to be.

How many of these rockets have been fired and how many people have been killed by them?

TPH was right, they'd be better off with catapults or nipping down to my local off licence in late October.

Edit: Ignorant of what?

Wasn't meant to be.

How many of these rockets have been fired and how many people have been killed by them?

TPH was right, they'd be better off with catapults or nipping down to my local off licence in late October.

Edit: Ignorant of what?

I bet more people have been killed by being struck by humanitarian aid airdrops in Afghanistan than by Qassam rockets. Food is a more effective weapon. :p

Get a grip? Jews have led an atrocious war of colonization against Palestine and its inhabitants for the past 90 years. They deserve the severest punishment for their deeds and attitude. Condemnation is definitely not enough, because it will not stop the colonization. They live on another people's land and they even boast about it. There is no reason why Tel Aviv should not burn like Dresden did. Btw Russia would do.

Care for a drink Dr.Goebbels?

(But on a sidenote, though generally pro-Israel, they are taking this too far, and Hamas isn't helping anyone with their actions)

Qassam rockets have an explosives payload of about ten kilos. It's not a lawn dart, if it hits an apartment building it'll punch through a wall easily. If it hits a person, or hits near a person, that person is dead. They're perfectly lethal, they're just long range weapons with no guidance system and as such are effectively worthless.

Yeah Qassam rockets are lethal...
But an attack with artillery or bombardment with super modern fighter cause much more deads than tens of Qassam rockets. It is how to respond an insult with a letter bomb

Care for a drink Dr.Goebbels?Save your bullshit. Goebbels would have been just fine with the Israelis. After all, they use his methods.

(But on a sidenote, though generally pro-Israel, they are taking this too far, and Hamas isn't helping anyone with their actions)This is not about Hamas. This is about the upcoming election in Israel.

Get a grip? Jews have led an atrocious war of colonization against Palestine and its inhabitants for the past 90 years. They deserve the severest punishment for their deeds and attitude. Condemnation is definitely not enough, because it will not stop the colonization. They live on another people's land and they even boast about it. There is no reason why Tel Aviv should not burn like Dresden did. Btw Russia would do.

Then again, there is that small problem with what Hamas actually IS.
Certainly, one can state Israels actions are wrong and back that up with plenty of supporting arguments.
But Hamas mission for the region is. .. how shall I say it.. not exactly an enlightened quest for freedom, general happyness and so forth. Hamas in fact is not really Nice[tm] at all.

It is the whole "was the second Iraq war justified" debate all over again (though with some differences of course ;))

Then again, there is that small problem with what Hamas actually IS.
Certainly, one can state Israels actions are wrong and back that up with plenty of supporting arguments.
But Hamas mission for the region is. .. how shall I say it.. not exactly an enlightened quest for freedom, general happyness and so forth. Hamas in fact is not really Nice[tm] at all.

It is the whole "was the second Iraq war justified" debate all over again (though with some differences of course ;))What does the history of Palestine have to do with the Iraq war?? The Iraq war is about one retarded US president finishing the job that his retarded US president dad has begun. Personal revenge, nothing more.
Palestine is way different. Palestine was invaded and occupied by foreigners for ideological reasons. This has nothing to do with Hamas. Hamas is just a symptom of Palestinian despair over being left alone against the vilest aggression the world has seen. Palestinians get slowly ethnically cleansed for over 60 years now but everyone just pads Israel on the back.

Then again, there is that small problem with what Hamas actually IS.
Certainly, one can state Israels actions are wrong and back that up with plenty of supporting arguments.
But Hamas mission for the region is. .. how shall I say it.. not exactly an enlightened quest for freedom, general happyness and so forth. Hamas in fact is not really Nice[tm] at all.

Which does not justify Israel's attacks, and, Hamas being what it is, makes their very actions counterproductive.


QUASSAM ROKET

LAWN DART

/29/APTOPIX_MIDEAST_ISRAE_Lea_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec8653055db7939[/IMG]
"PROPERTY DAMAGE"

... and I suppose you'd call this a "lawn dart collection"? (actually it is the remains of exploded rockets launched into Israel by Hamas)


LOL@U :rolleyes:
Yet what is their body count, even after hitting a residential building? 2 non-serious injuries. Apparently they killed one person before the attacks started from Israel.

What does the history of Palestine have to do with the Iraq war??

Ironically the rest of your post gave the perfect answer to that:

The Iraq war is about one retarded US president finishing the job that his retarded US president dad has begun. Personal revenge, nothing more.
Palestine is way different. Palestine was invaded and occupied by foreigners for ideological reasons. This has nothing to do with Hamas. Hamas is just a symptom of Palestinian despair over being left alone against the vilest aggression the world has seen. Palestinians get slowly ethnically cleansed for over 60 years now but everyone just pads Israel on the back.

See - same situation. The "invader" is in the wrong, can even be blamed to some degree for having caused the current negative situation - but the fact remains that getting rid of the leaders they are getting rid off is.. well... somewhat desireable. Saddam was filth. Hamas is led by filth. Saddams death was a reason to party. The death of a Hamas leader is a reason to party.

So which should weigh heavier ? The badness of the invaders, or the badness they happen to exterminate ? Evil vs evil...

The deal is that the rockets have to be quick set up, quick point, quick fire and quick dismantle if at all and bail out of the neighborhood fast. There isnt time for NASA to whip off a count down or two and a systems check.
I think you confuse "catapult" and "space ship."

Ironically the rest of your post gave the perfect answer to that:



See - same situation. The "invader" is in the wrong, can even be blamed to some degree for having caused the current negative situation - but the fact remains that getting rid of the leaders they are getting rid off is.. well... somewhat desireable. Saddam was filth. Hamas is led by filth. Saddams death was a reason to party. The death of a Hamas leader is a reason to party.

So which should weigh heavier ? The badness of the invaders, or the badness they happen to exterminate ? Evil vs evil...
Complete bullshit. This is not about removing leadership. This is just one more step in going against the Palestinians, the people who live in Gaza. Israel is the incarnation of evil. Or has the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank stopped or can the Palestinians living in refugee camps suddenly return? Has Israel gone back to the Green Line as its internationally acceptable borders?? Israel is dirt. Stop pretending that this is the first incident and there has not been a 90-years history of Jewish atrocities against Arabs.

The Israeli government and military want international 'monitors' in there but won't allow international journalists in (despite being ordered to by the Supreme Court, they still defy it).

Something's amiss there.

Because they're obviously stalling or covering up something they don't want the world to find out.

Complete bullshit. This is not about removing leadership. This is just one more step in going against the Palestinians, the people who live in Gaza. Israel is the incarnation of evil. Or has the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank stopped or can the Palestinians living in refugee camps suddenly return? Has Israel gone back to the Green Line as its internationally acceptable borders?? Israel is dirt. Stop pretending that this is the first incident and there has not been a 90-years history of Jewish atrocities against Arabs.

Ok, lets have a little history lesson.

1897-1918 - Zionism is born as a political movement. It encourages the creation of a state of Israel. To this end, it encourages Jews to immigrate to the Palestine area, and even helps fund legal purchase of the land.

1918 - The area known as Palestine comes under the rule of the UK, by League of Nations mandate. The Brits, in what can now only be described as a giant screw-up, made conflicting promises to both Arabs and Israelis.

1920 - First relatively organized act of violence, known as the 1920 Palestine Riots. The Palestinians, concerned about Jewish immigration to the area, rioted against the Jews. 5 Jews died, 216 wounded - 18 critically. 4 Arabs died, 23 wounded - 1 critically.

1921 - Second organized act of violence, known as Jaffa riots. The Jewish communist party called for a toppling of British rule and establishment of their own Soviet state. On the same day, a rival socialist group held a similar march for their agenda. The two groups met, and violence erupted. Thinking that the Jews had finally attacked the Arab population (being misinformed as to the nature of the disturbance), the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive - murdering 47 Jews and wounding 146 others.

1929 - Hebron massacre. Rumors had falsely spread that the Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem (which never actually happened). In response, the Arabs in Hebron massacred 67 Jews.

1947 - The UN approved the British Mandate of Palestine - splitting the region into two autonomous states - one Jewish, and one Arab. The Jewish leaders approved the plan, but the Palestinian leaders rejected it, and so started a civil war.

1948, May 14 - Israel gains the upper hand in the fighting, and declares its independence.

The same day, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq invaded the Palestinian state. The Israelis won this battle, and captured land as the defender.

1967 - the Six days war. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria attacked Israel with backing from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. Israel beat them all in six days, and captured territory as the defender.

Etc, etc, etc.

Ok, lets have a little history lesson.

1897-1918 - Zionism is born as a political movement. It encourages the creation of a state of Israel. To this end, it encourages Jews to immigrate to the Palestine area, and even helps fund legal purchase of the land.

1918 - The area known as Palestine comes under the rule of the UK, by League of Nations mandate. The Brits, in what can now only be described as a giant screw-up, made conflicting promises to both Arabs and Israelis.

1920 - First relatively organized act of violence, known as the 1920 Palestine Riots. The Palestinians, concerned about Jewish immigration to the area, rioted against the Jews. 5 Jews died, 216 wounded - 18 critically. 4 Arabs died, 23 wounded - 1 critically.

1921 - Second organized act of violence, known as Jaffa riots. The Jewish communist party called for a toppling of British rule and establishment of their own Soviet state. On the same day, a rival socialist group held a similar march for their agenda. The two groups met, and violence erupted. Thinking that the Jews had finally attacked the Arab population (being misinformed as to the nature of the disturbance), the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive - murdering 47 Jews and wounding 146 others.

1929 - Hebron massacre. Rumors had falsely spread that the Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem (which never actually happened). In response, the Arabs in Hebron massacred 67 Jews.

1947 - The UN approved the British Mandate of Palestine - splitting the region into two autonomous states - one Jewish, and one Arab. The Jewish leaders approved the plan, but the Palestinian leaders rejected it, and so started a civil war.

1948, May 14 - Israel gains the upper hand in the fighting, and declares its independence.

The same day, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq invaded the Palestinian state. The Israelis won this battle, and captured land as the defender.

1967 - the Six days war. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria attacked Israel with backing from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. Israel beat them all in six days, and captured territory as the defender.

Etc, etc, etc.

I know all of this and its Israel-friendly interpretation of things. However, that does not make Zionism and the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine and the subsequent ethnic cleansing right. Jews never belonged into Palestine in the first place (except the 7 or so percent that have always lived there). YHVH is genocidal maniac, Judaism is ideological dirt, there is no need for a Jewish state.

I know all of this and its Israel-friendly interpretation of things. However, that does not make Zionism and the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine and the subsequent ethnic cleansing right. Jews never belonged into Palestine in the first place (except the 7 or so percent that have always lived there). YHVH is genocidal maniac, Judaism is ideological dirt, there is no need for a Jewish state.

They were purchasing the land legally - the same way you would purchase land in California, Michigan, or Germany.

There is no record of any ethnic cleansing occurring until the Arabs fired the first shot - so to speak - by murdering Jews because of concerns that too many of them were immigrating.

This would be like us murdering black people because we think too many of them bought land in Alabama. Would you encourage behavior like that as well?

I know all of this and its Israel-friendly interpretation of things. However, that does not make Zionism and the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine and the subsequent ethnic cleansing right. Jews never belonged into Palestine in the first place (except the 7 or so percent that have always lived there). YHVH is genocidal maniac, Judaism is ideological dirt, there is no need for a Jewish state.

I think the last 1000 years of world history have shown the need for a defended Jewish state.

I think it's the location which is troublesome.

They were purchasing the land legally - the same way you would purchase land in California, Michigan, or Germany.

There is no record of any ethnic cleansing occurring until the Arabs fired the first shot - so to speak - by murdering Jews because of concerns that too many of them were immigrating.

This would be like us murdering black people because we think too many of them bought land in Alabama. Would you encourage behavior like that as well?
Would you then proceed to tolerate, nay enable, black people to go around forcibly taking land from white people who lived adjacent to the land the black people hold legally and carrying out massive, deadly campaigns against white people in the area because how they were treated in the past?

The only people in the world that get away with shit like that is Israel.

Would you then proceed to tolerate, nay enable, black people to go around forcibly taking land from white people who lived adjacent to the land the black people hold legally and carrying out massive, deadly campaigns against white people in the area because how they were treated in the past?

The only people in the world that get away with shit like that is Israel.

No, but I would allow them to buy land, legally, at a fair price from white people, and move in at their leisure. I would also allow them to now vote and run for public office in the land in which they now live.

Don't take me wrong - i think both sides are extremely dirty, and if I had my way, we'd carpet bomb both sides out of existence and just call it a day, but when he says that Israel has been on this kick for 90 years, he's dead wrong. That would mean that it began in 1919, which is one year before the first recorded violence which was instigated by the Arabs and targeted Jews.

And Israel deserves its existence - whether as a unified state (one man, one vote) or as a divided state. I cannot believe that, as Hamas and apparently HappyLesbo does, that we can just sweep them off land they've bought and paid for in cash just because we don't like them.

They were purchasing the land legally - the same way you would purchase land in California, Michigan, or Germany.

There is no record of any ethnic cleansing occurring until the Arabs fired the first shot - so to speak - by murdering Jews because of concerns that too many of them were immigrating.

This would be like us murdering black people because we think too many of them bought land in Alabama. Would you encourage behavior like that as well?

WEEEeell...Now that you Mention it....lol...


jk(sorry I couldnt resist the irony), But, your right, I still dont see why the two cant get along....

WEEEeell...Now that you Mention it....lol...


jk(sorry I couldnt resist the irony)

I said Alabama for a reason :D

I think the last 1000 years of world history have shown the need for a defended Jewish state.How so? Just because Jews could not get along with anyone? Maybe a change of attitude would have helped.

I think it's the location which is troublesome.They could have taken New Jersey.

They were purchasing the land legally - the same way you would purchase land in California, Michigan, or Germany.

There is no record of any ethnic cleansing occurring until the Arabs fired the first shot - so to speak - by murdering Jews because of concerns that too many of them were immigrating.

This would be like us murdering black people because we think too many of them bought land in Alabama. Would you encourage behavior like that as well?Land ownership by Jews in Palestine never exceeded 12%. So cut the crap.
If any foreign bunch of people with the declared aim to create a state came to your country you would have any right to shoot them right there. because that is called an invasion.

They could have taken New Jersey.

Or East LA.

Land ownership by Jews in Palestine never exceeded 12%. So cut the crap.
If any foreign bunch of people with the declared aim to create a state came to your country you would have any right to shoot them right there. because that is called an invasion.

That's why that long haired dude in the turqoise jewelry store shot me?

I thought he saw me palm those silver feather earrings...

How so? Just because Jews could not get along with anyone? Maybe a change of attitude would have helped.

Erm, I think you should go read some Eutopean history, start about 300 AD and go through to about 1945.

They could have taken New Jersey.

More sensible would have been a nation formed from southern Germany.

Land ownership by Jews in Palestine never exceeded 12%. So cut the crap. [Citation Needed]

If any foreign bunch of people with the declared aim to create a state came to your country you would have any right to shoot them right there. because that is called an invasion.

Except it was not the Palestinian's state to begin with, and never was - it belonged to the Ottomans, then the British. When they were granted independence, it was as two states - an Israeli state and a Palestinian one. The Palestinian one never existed by itself. Therefore, they have no claim to the Israeli state which they never owned in the first place.

Israel wasn't bought by the Jews, It was GIVEN to them BY the UN. HappyLesbo, please take your anti-Semitic remarks elsewhere.

Except it was not the Palestinian's state to begin with, and never was - it belonged to the Ottomans, then the British. When they were granted independence, it was as two states - an Israeli state and a Palestinian one. The Palestinian one never existed by itself. Therefore, they have no claim to the Israeli state which they never owned in the first place.Arabs of course owned the land, simply because the have lived on it since time immemorial. The land neither belonged to the Turks nor the British but to its inhabitants. Their natural right to self-determination was violated however by the British, by the League of Nations and subsequently by the UN.
The division plan was not about giving Jews and Arabs land, it was about taking it away from Arabs and giving it to Jews. Palestinians never had independence.

Arabs of course owned the land, simply because the have lived on it since time immemorial.

I heard Moses and Mohamad arm wrestled for the West Bank.

Israel wasn't bought by the Jews, It was GIVEN to them BY the UN. HappyLesbo, please take your anti-Semitic remarks elsewhere.The UN had no right or justification to give Arab land away.

Arabs of course owned the land, simply because the have lived on it since time immemorial. The land neither belonged to the Turks nor the British but to its inhabitants.

Those inhabitants included Jews who had bought and paid for their land. Either you admit that the Jews had just as much right to that land (that they had purchased) as the Palestinians, or you admit that it belonged to the controlling power. You can't have it both ways.

Their natural right to self-determination was violated however by the British, by the League of Nations and subsequently by the UN.

Yes, the Brits, the League, and the UN all screwed it up. I can't argue that. What we can't agree on is *how* they screwed it up.

Personally, I would have left it as one nation and let them fight with votes, but that's just me.

The division plan was not about giving Jews and Arabs land, it was about taking it away from Arabs and giving it to Jews. Palestinians never had independence.

Because they declined to take their independence when it was offered to them freely. It may have been a bad arrangement, but when someone offers you a bad deal, you make a counteroffer. You do not start shooting.

BTW - still waiting for that 12% citation.

The UN had no right or justification to give Arab land away.

Meh. I'd disagree. The UNSC has the right and justification to do what it feels fit in maintaining international peace and security. Thems the rules.