PDA

View Full Version : So here's what "Give Peace a Chance" did


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 07:51 AM
Like the BS before World War II, our "Give Peace a Chance" factions in the world have led us to another predictable situation where more people will be killed than if the job had been done in the first place. Exactly the model set for us by the Europeans in World War II and which they continue to follow everytime, even though it leads to more trouble everytime:


The Sunday Times November 12, 2006


Hezbollah's missiles back in Lebanon
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv



FOUR months after Israel launched its onslaught against Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrillas are back in south Lebanon stronger than ever and armed with more rockets than they had before the conflict, according to Israeli intelligence.
During the month-long war, which began on July 12, Hezbollah fired 200 to 250 rockets a day into Israel, killing 43 civilians and terrorising much of the north of the country.



"Since the ceasefire, additional rockets, weapons and military equipment have reached Hezbollah," said an Israeli intelligence officer. "We assume they now have about 20,000 rockets of all ranges — a bit more than they had before July 12."

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has confirmed the Israeli estimate. In a recent interview with al-Manar, the Hezbollah television station, he claimed his organisation had restocked its arsenal and now held at least 30,000 rockets, sufficient for five months of war.

Israeli military intelligence has warned the government that renewed fighting with Hezbollah, which it regards as a terrorist organisation, should be expected as early as next spring.

In response, Israeli forces have taken emergency action. They have postponed a plan to reduce the length of national service — currently 36 months for men and about 24 months for women — and are stepping up production of better armoured tanks.

They are also grouping all special forces into a single new division and are developing laser technology, jointly with the United States, to shoot down Hezbollah's rockets.

On the border with Lebanon it is easy to understand Israeli concerns. A sniper from the Israeli 50th infantry brigade said last week that Hezbollah was active, although its members wore civilian clothes rather than uniforms.

The sniper, a 24-year-old lawyer from New York on national service, watched through his gun sight as a young man carrying an AK-47 assault rifle climbed from a Jeep. "He was walking quickly and all of a sudden he disappeared into a hidden shelter," he said. "Then the guy went back to the Jeep and back to the tunnel, checking how quickly he could get there. Then he climbed into the Jeep and drove away.

He added: "We feel that Hezbollah are constantly there, though we rarely see any weapons."

The Israeli military estimates that at least 5,000 rockets are hidden in secret shelters along the border, which it failed to find before the ceasefire came into effect on August 14.

Iranian-made long-range Zelzal rockets, which could reach Tel Aviv, have been stored in hidden locations. "We're now in a race to locate the new rockets," said a Mossad source.

Tracking down the Iranian rockets was one of Israel's few military successes in the summer. According to sources, the Israeli air force destroyed them on the first night of battle. "We believe Hezbollah have learnt their lesson and it will be much harder to locate them next time," said the source.

Israel has not yet found a way to tackle the threat from the short and medium-range rockets. It is developing the Nautilus laser-guided cannon in an attempt to intercept them. "It still remains to be seen if the laser gun will work," said another source. "But it will take up to three years and might be too late for the next war."

Israel is alarmed at the burgeoning self-confidence of Nasrallah and what it perceives as his intention to undermine Lebanon's fragile government and take over the country's politics.

Talks in Beirut to defuse the crisis collapsed yesterday. Nasrallah has set a deadline of tomorrow for his demands to be met or he will stage mass demonstrations.

Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 09:01 AM
So all the problems between Hezbollah and Israel are caused by the Europeans in WW2? thats interesting. Hmmmmmm..... I can't see where anyone said that. Maybe some remedial reading comprehension?

The point is that the UN and the countries that *insisted* on a cease-fire, but never enforced it, continue to look like the anti-Israeli, anti-Semites that the Europeans (and others) most definitely were in World War II.

Look at the "cease-fire" and the BS enforcement of it. Hezbollah is re-armed. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned. And so on. Nothing said or guaranteed by any Islamic country can ever be counted on. All they understand is extreme force; all the years of aid, "diplomacy", "hearts and minds", etc., have only wound up costing more lives, more money, and less safety. Exactly the lesson the Europeans should have learned from World War II.

The problem being that all the Europeans that insisted on "appeasement now", which ultimately resulted in 50 million deaths, never stepped forward to say "we wuz wrong". They were allowed to escape having to face their own responsibilities. And now, once again, the liberal Europeans are helping lead the appeasement route, even though all the signs are there... once again.

FWIW

Mike

Mark Gibbons
11-13-2006, 09:02 AM
...more people will be killed than if the job had been done in the first place. ...I]

What would "doing the job in the first place" have looked like? Maybe unrestricted total war followed by an occupation, if there was anything left? I don't think a massive war would work did you mean something else?

Regards,
Mark

Taliesin
11-13-2006, 09:40 AM
Mike Anti Israeli and anti-Semitic are NOT the same thing.

Remember that being Jewish and being Israeli are not automatically the same thing.

Hell it's not even certain that being Israeli automatically means you're Jewish.

Nor does it follow that being Israeli means that you support the IDF's or Governments actions.

But 'if the JOB had been "done in the first place". there would have been what - less total people killed, less Palestinians killed, less civilians killed ,what?

To be honest if you want to traced back the current upsurge - it seems to come down to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, or the kidnapping of Palestinians a few days earlier or massive assault a few days after.

Should a cease fire automatically weaken the already weaker party? The party that suffers by far the largest number of civilian deaths?

Or should we have disarme the Palestinians whilst the IDF is on their doorstep.

BTW - The Yanks were as guilty of ant-semitism as the rest of us certainly prior to WWII

Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 09:44 AM
What would "doing the job in the first place" have looked like? Maybe unrestricted total war followed by an occupation, if there was anything left? I don't think a massive war would work did you mean something else? Instead of always questioning "our side" and how "it will never work so we should just give up", why don't you think of and insist on some solutions on the Arabs' part? If the world would start pressuring the Arabs instead of the US and Israel's every response, maybe the Arabs would change? I realize this is a novel idea. But the Arabs depend heavily on a PR war to keep the "blame the West first" attitude strong among some factions in the West, particularly the liberals and the liberal press.

Mike

Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 09:52 AM
Mike Anti Israeli and anti-Semitic are NOT the same thing. In most cases it is, though, despite the dissimulations and protestations.
But 'if the JOB had been "done in the first place". there would have been what - less total people killed, less Palestinians killed, less civilians killed ,what?

To be honest if you want to traced back the current upsurge - it seems to come down to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, or the kidnapping of Palestinians a few days earlier or massive assault a few days after. No, it actually comes from the Arabs continuing, with the help of the anti-semitic Europeans, to war against Israel, with no helpful responsive measures being taken by the Europeans. The Europeans, just like in World War II, have done absolutely nothing substantively constructive (other than a few token "military contributions) about enforcing a peace in the Middle East. Should a cease fire automatically weaken the already weaker party? The party that suffers by far the largest number of civilian deaths?

Or should we have disarme the Palestinians whilst the IDF is on their doorstep. You're watching, right now, what Hebollah, Iran, et al are doing and you're prepared to "Blame the West" and "Blame Israel". If we disarmed the Palestinians, peace would result. If we disarm Israel, they will be destroyed. And you will be happy. You're part of the problem, David. BTW - The Yanks were as guilty of ant-semitism as the rest of us certainly prior to WWII Oh really? Is *that* why the Jews left England, whenever possible, and emigrated to the US. As one of your columnists noted, the reason so many Brits have no empathy with Jews is because they all left England and went to the US. France shipped Jews to concentration camps. And so on. This habit of "always try to shift the blame to the US" is rather a slimey debate habit of your, David. Where have I seen you blame the Arabs for anything, other than as a token lip-service to pretend you're being balanced, just before another West-blaming diatribe?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Taliesin
11-13-2006, 10:36 AM
Mike

If you really want me to sink down to your level I will.

FYI - It is still far more Palestinian individuals being killed than Israeli's. There are far more UN Resolutions against Israel than anyone else in the region. Far more are killed by IDF bombs,and missiles and artillery shells

Of Course to really enforce the peace you would have to get the IDF to retreat inside their own borders- they don't have to disarm and they certainly wouldn't be destroyed.

So the argument is to ensure peace take away all weapons from the weaker side and let the stronger invade and kill whoever they wish (Now why does that sound so familiar?)

Also I didn't Blame the US - I just pointed out that you don't have any basis for claiming any 'moral' superiority' over anyone (except the Germans) for their actions prior to WW!!

Now before you reply please resist the temptation to claim that criticizing an army that deliberately and knowing fires missiles at unarmed and defenseless women counts as anti-semitism.

You may think I'm part of the problem - but you also thought that invading Iraq was a solution.

Still, hopefully someone will buy you a dictionary for Christmas

Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 10:51 AM
If you really want me to sink down to your level I will. Good start, and indicative of your character. FYI - It is still far more Palestinian individuals being killed than Israeli's. But has that stopped them from continuous attacks? No. This BS of how many Arabs are being killed and yet ignoring the fact that *they* are the aggressors is ludicrous. Look how many Germans wound up being killed *proportionately* in WWII.... bad, bad Allies, eh? There are far more UN Resolutions against Israel than anyone else in the region. In fact, 25% of all resolutions passed by the UN, with its heavy Arab and their allies make-up, are against Israel. No resolutions of note are passed against any Arab country, even when large in-country killings take place. Yet this is not a hidden fact, so I can only assume you're simply being dishonest by not mentioning it when you try to point out how many resolutions the dissolute and corrupt UN passes against Israel. The problem with the UN is not Israel... it's the UN. We need to disband the UN for the same reasons the League of Nations was disbanded. It's useless. Of Course to really enforce the peace you would have to get the IDF to retreat inside their own borders- they don't have to disarm and they certainly wouldn't be destroyed. Really? Back inside the borders of the State of Israel... or the borders the Arabs would like them to retreat to? I haven't seen anyone trying to get the Arabs to stick to any borders, which they freely transgress and attack over. In fact, legally the Lebanese recently attacked Israel, but they chose to not hold the Lebanese government accountable. Also I didn't Blame the US - I just pointed out that you don't have any basis for claiming any 'moral' superiority' over anyone (except the Germans) for their actions prior to WW!! I wish you guys had claimed all of that before World War II or during the Cold War when the US guaranteed your freedom from Russia or now, when the US military forces are still counted upon in some emergency, thus freeing up the EU governments to be socialist welfare states.

I'm simply hoping that we actually withdraw and let the Europeans handle their own problems for a while and grow some spines. Meanwhile, we'll all study Arabic over here so that we can deal with the future Eurabia... because that's what's going to happen, dearheart. ;)

Mike

Mark Gibbons
11-13-2006, 10:58 AM
Instead of always questioning "our side" and how "it will never work so we should just give up", why don't you think of and insist on some solutions on the Arabs' part? If the world would start pressuring the Arabs instead of the US and Israel's every response, maybe the Arabs would change? I realize this is a novel idea. But the Arabs depend heavily on a PR war to keep the "blame the West first" attitude strong among some factions in the West, particularly the liberals and the liberal press.

Mike What leverage to we have on the "Arabs" that would lead them to dream up solutions? I don't see any. Should we start our own PR war to make the "ARABS" look bad? How could they look worse than now? I don't see any reason any Eastern nation would care in the least about my opinion. BTW where did the quote "it will never work so we should just give up" come from?
Regards,
Mark

Taliesin
11-13-2006, 11:20 AM
Mike

"I wish you guys had claimed all of that before World War II or during the Cold War when the US guaranteed your freedom from Russia"

I think we are all aware of just how ignorant you are of history - after all you are they guy who didn't realize the the bombing of Pearl Harbor has something to do with the US's entry into WW11

But please can you stop advertising it - think how embarrassing it must be for your countrymen to have someone actively living down to the stereotype of the ignorant Yank.

And anyway you have a President to do that.

But For your information - Britain had already won the battle of Britain and captured the Enigma machine before the US entered the War.

Finally getting to your point that driving into someone Else's territory with lots of tanks and killing lots of people doesn't amount to "aggression" but firing back does - again that sounds strangely familiar.

Still hoping you get a dictionary for Christmas

Mike Sigman
11-13-2006, 11:52 AM
Oops. Here's another editorial along the same lines about the European sidelines critics:

The Vote Heard Around the World
November 12, 2006 02:00 PM EST



Any way you slice it, Tuesday’s election was a kick in the gut for President Bush and the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, had a great day at the track, hitting the trifecta of both houses of Congress plus the head of Donald Rumsfeld on a platter. After sorting through the wreckage, the GOP will have some soul searching to do to find out how to recover in time for 2008.

What happened? Simply put, the Republicans blew it. A perfect storm of scandals (revved up by the media, but scandals nonetheless), the Iraq War, and inept campaigns (that means you, George Allen) swept the Democrats to victory.

To be fair, the D’s played a great hand. They fielded some conservative “Blue Dog” candidates, painted every Republican opponent – even those with no experience at the federal level – as being for the war, and mumbled over the details of their actual plan.

Game. Set. Match. The House will now come to order, Speaker Pelosi presiding (insert shuddering here).

Joining Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore in the champagne popping and backslapping was just about every Bush hater around the globe - the “we like Americans, but hate your president” crowd. In an unusual move, 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament touted the American election results as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.” Newspaper editorials were similarly giddy over the outcome, happy that the “cowboy” had finally been dealt a dose of humility.

Being something of a sixty-year nightmare themselves, socialists across the pond have a lot of nerve phrasing their glee in such a manner. It is American “cowboys,” after all, that have afforded Europe the very luxury of their welfare state lifestyles. Ronald Reagan, derided at the time much as George Bush is now, made nuclear deterrence a cornerstone of his foreign policy, providing Europe with a tacit umbrella of protection. The current president’s foray in Iraq, agree with it or not, has at the very least been a diversion for every jihadist willing to strap TNT to his chest and blow up some infidels. It is certainly better to lure them into Iraq to take on men with M-16’s rather than have them climbing aboard commuter trains in Madrid or London. (There is something to be said for five years without a domestic terror incident in the US.)

Another point of contention between Europeans and the Bush administration has been the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. With three meals per day (detainees gain an average of 18 pounds), access to top-notch medical care, and a vast library of books available, one wonders what is missing? Perhaps turn down service and a halal mint on the pillow?

Despite the histrionic indignation over treating terrorist prisoners like, well, terrorist prisoners, Europe’s governments have fought every attempt to have their own countrymen repatriated from Gitmo. London turned down 10 former British residents, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance. Ditto Berlin, which in August permitted the return of a Turkish national raised in Germany…four years after turning down a US proposal to release him.

The State Department’s chief legal adviser, John Bellinger III, summed it up nicely: "In practical terms, it's not enough to say, 'Guantanamo should be closed,' without suggesting the next sentence: What do you do with the people who are there?"

Excellent question. I doubt that the European elite, much better at complaining than making hard choices or proposing alternatives, care to field that one. Indeed, our erstwhile allies have made an art form of criticizing from the bench. When offered a ball and glove, however, they usually decline. Why bother getting your uniform dirty when you don’t have to?

Which brings it back to the Democrats. They have also had the luxury of critiquing the president’s every move from the safety of the sidelines. After trumpeting for years that they would do things “differently” or “smarter,” we finally get to see exactly what that means.

Let’s hope they get it right, because the stakes have never been higher.

Cady Goldfield
11-13-2006, 03:12 PM
Anti-Semitism and anti-Israel can't really be separated, because in general, all are descended from the same tribal group of Middle-Eastern origin. The Israelis are the ones who have returned to re-settle their ancestral lands. After 2,000 years of diaspora, there has been some in-mixing of other ethnicities, (and a number of people of non-Jewish ancestry have settled in Israel too, taking advantage of its open, Democratic society) but the majority of their history (and DNA) harks from this home region.

It is the Jewish homeland on many levels. Heck, their ancestral temple is smack in the middle of Jerusalem -- the city their ancient king built. But no one seems to be upset by the fact that Muslims built their Al-Aqsa shrine right on top of its ruins, claiming it was where Mohammed ascended to heaven... (a couple thousand years after Jews built their temple there). Now they use it as a point of contention, complaining that the presence of Jews descrates their sacred site.

To hate Israel is to deny a basic principle of Hebrew/Jewish ancestry and heritage. While Arabs squawk about alleged injustices to them, you don't hear about the fact that Jews have dwelt in Arab lands for millennia, and at the establishment of Israel, they suddenly became pariahs -- in Syria, Iraq, Persian Iran, and virtually ALL Arab and Muslim countries, they are treated as worse than 2nd-class citizens. No one seems to care about the poverty and persecution they face daily. Automatically, every Jew was suspected of being a Zionist spy. This has not changed in the 6 decades of Israel's existance.


Arabs exist in vastly larger numbers and have conquered large chunks of Africa, Europe and the Middle East over the previous millennia. Their continued ethnic dominance is making itself very evident now in Sudan, where they are displacing the indigenous black ethnic groups through genocide and rape. I don't hear much of an uproar here over the fact that Arabs, who number at over 700,000 (as compared to a scant 13 million Jews of Hebrew-Semitic descent), dominate that quadrant of the globe.

The issue is not whether or not Israel is legitimate, but that Arabs want complete and total dominion of the Middle East, and Israel is a bone in their throat. We, in our comfy Western homes, like to pay lip service without understanding what it's like to walk in Israelis' shoes. The liberal press (NPR, etc.) rarely if ever represents Israel's point of view in their reporting; it's the view of the Arabs they project. Israel and the Jewish people fight and struggle daily for the very right to exist in a world that resents them.

A scant 13 million ethnic-Hebrew Jews in the entire world vs. 700 million Arabs/900 million Muslims. Israel itself is only 6 million of those Jews, immediately surrounded by 22 million of those Arab plus the hate-filled Persians of Iran. Israel doesn't need to apologize to anyone for anything, nor explain itself or the actions it takes to preserve its life.

Neil Mick
11-13-2006, 06:51 PM
Oy, vey. :freaky:

It seems that David is goin' snipe-hunting (Mike-hunting?) again.

And, just reading your end of the posts, I have the feeling that you're beating his strawmen to a messy, insensate, pulpy mess. :dead:

Here, I gotta peek, just to be sure.

(*click*) :uch: ooh. No, not a pretty picture.

(*click*) whew. That makes the screen all better. More...logical; less...gorey. :p

Mike

If you really want me to sink down to your level I will.

Oh, please don't. I'm pulling out the rubber galoshes, already.

But, hand me that bat, willya? I'm in the mood for a little straw-bashin'. evileyes

Here...let's just look at the record of recent Israeli activities, so far...

1. In the town of Beit Hanoun (in Gaza), 19 dead, dozens wounded, including 7 children, dead.

2. Total number of dead in Gaza, since Israel's re-invasion of Gaza, in June: 350

3. Total number of casualties, from Palestinian rocket-fire, since June: 0

4. Total percantage of cluster-bombs dropped by Israel on Lebanese civilian populations in the last 48 hrs of the war: 85%

"Colleagues in the UN Mine Action Co-Ordination Centre have undertaken assessments of nearly 85 per cent of bombed areas in South Lebanon have identified 359 separate cluster bomb strike locations that are contaminated with as many as 100,000 unexploded bomblets. What's shocking and I would say to me completely immoral is that 90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this."

5. Israel knowingly targeted and bombed Gaza's only power plant, this Summer, leaving Gaza without power.

6. Israel's good buddy, the US, has used its veto-power about 70 times since it became a member of the SC. More than half of those were used on behalf of Israel...most recently used to veto the UN condemnation of the 19 killed, in Beit Hanoun.

And the capper...

Look at the "cease-fire" and the BS enforcement of it. Hezbollah is re-armed. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned. And so on. Nothing said or guaranteed by any Islamic country can ever be counted on.

Hezbollah Renews Call for Prisoner Swap
Back in Lebanon, Hezbollah has repeated calls for a negotiated prisoner exchange with Israel. This is Hezbollah member and Lebanese Minister of Water and Energy Mohammed Fneish.

Lebanese Minister of Water and Energy Mohammed Fneish: "From the beginning, from when the resistance abducted the two Israeli soldiers, the position was clear. The aim of this operation was to negotiate a swap through indirect negotiations. This position was taken before the aggression, and it is only normal that we enforce our position in that there is no unconditional release and it can only be achieved through a swap and indirect negotiations."

Israel has publicly dismissed calls for a prisoner swap.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you first respond to this news that there may be some deal worked out for the release of the Israeli soldier?

DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Yes, absolutely. There is a deal, and this deal is accepted by Palestinian groups, and there are certain international mediators that have been mediating to conclude it with Egypt. And the deal is about releasing the Israeli soldiers, and in exchange for releasing a small limited number of Palestinian prisoners, with a promise that a bigger number will be released out of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners that include 150 women and 450 children, and to have complete and total bilateral ceasefire, which means Israel would stop completely bombarding Gaza, take out its troops from Gaza Strip, and Palestinians would abstain from any form of military action. I think it's a great deal. I don't know why the Israelis do not want to implement it.

I could well go on and on, but lemme save you all a step, you Virtual Freedom Fighters of Israel.

Israel is not to blame. In fact, Israel is NEVER to blame. They can make a pile of bodies to the moon, bomb families in their sleep, build walls around every single Arab's house, mine and bomb their lands, deny access to clean water, and it's all good.

Know why? Because: they're defending themselves.

And, Israel has every right to systematically violate every human rights law on the books, because they're our "friends." :hypno:

No One Is Guilty in Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/786549.html)

No one is guilty in Israel. There is never anyone guilty in Israel. The prime minister who is responsible for the brutal policy toward the Palestinians, the defense minister who knew about and approved the bombardments, the chief of staff, the chief of command and the commander of the division who gave the orders to bombard - not one of them is guilty. They will continue with the work of killing as though nothing has happened: The sun shone, the system flourished and the ritual slaughterer slaughtered. They will continue to pursue the routine of their daily lives, accepted in society like anyone else, and remain in their posts despite the blood on their hands.

A few hours after the disaster, while the Gaza Strip was still enveloped in sorrow and deep in shock, the air force was already hastening to carry out another targeted killing, an arrogant demonstration of just how much this disaster does not concern us. .

Whew: thanks, David (*handing bat back*). THAT sure got the kinks out!

You may now return to collect the pieces of your strawmen; reflect, and resume the silly accusations of anti-Semitism, once again. :p

Neil Mick
11-13-2006, 07:17 PM
The issue is not whether or not Israel is legitimate, but that Arabs want complete and total dominion of the Middle East, and Israel is a bone in their throat.

Oh please, stop with the silliness. I'd expect this stuff from Mikey: but any adult will realize that this "clash of civilizations" nonsense is a naive, and oversimplistic, model of human society.

We are more than just tiny components of juggernaut cultures headed for a collision course. The same person could be French, an African-American, Jewish, an Aikidoist, a vegetarian, a mother, an Arabic speaker, a Buddhist, a Conservative.

Societies are not so neatly drawn down lines of religion, and they certainly are not the monolithic entities that your post implies. Even within Arabic cultures you have a very complex mix of clans, families, ethnicities, and religion.

Cady Goldfield
11-13-2006, 08:36 PM
Actually, it is pretty basic and comes down to control of land and resources. This transcends humanity, and is, in fact the "prime directive" of all living organisms. You need to see past the trees to the forest. The Israelis want their land. So do the Arabs. Layers of rationale pile on top of it, but it is nothing more than the most basic primal principle.

Neil Mick
11-13-2006, 11:08 PM
Actually, it is pretty basic and comes down to control of land and resources.

Actually, it's a basically artificial model of how societies react and has little bearing in history, beyond a strictly European model of nation-states (and even then, limited).

This transcends humanity, and is, in fact the "prime directive" of all living organisms.

This transcends nothing, and is, in fact little better than a re-clothing of "Manifest Destiny," and other flawed idealisms.

You need to see past the trees to the forest.

You need to see past the trees to the forest.

The Israelis want their land. So do the Arabs. Layers of rationale pile on top of it, but it is nothing more than the most basic primal principle.

OK, here's where I diverge from the script.

Sorry, but this is, again, silly. You might like to excuse greedy and illegal settlements and power-grabs and clothe the excuse in apologist "Clash of Nations" rhetoric, but I don't.

If its all about Arab's vs. Israeli's: then why did Hussein invade Kuwait? Why did he attack Iran?? Why is there so much sectarian violence going on in Iraq, if its just "us vs. them?"

If there is little difference within the ranks of the "Arab menace:" what's the big deal about having Hamas lead the Pal. gov't? One group's as bad as the next, right? :rolleyes:

Again, people, communities and societies are bound together with much more complex ties than a simple religious divide. Muslims and Jews have all sorts of commonalities. There are Israeli Arabs, as there are Christian Arabs, as there are Jews living in Lebanon.

This idea of some secret, transnational Arab plot reminds me of the bugaboo logic we used to dredge up during the Communist-area. Apologist, with a whiff of narcissistic paranoia. :hypno:

RoyK
11-14-2006, 02:45 AM
3. Total number of casualties, from Palestinian rocket-fire, since June: 0


If I didn't know any better, this remark would make me think that you resent the fact that the countless Qassam missiles missed their human targets.

Does the fact that in every military operation, even operations that are clearly necessary for the short term and long term security of Israel, civilians lives are lost and tragedies occur, means Israel should cease all military activity? You must realize that parents from southern towns, who send their children to kindergarden and schools, not knowing if they will come back alive because they are targeted daily by Palestinian terrorists, cannot afford to have military activities ceased.

If the Israeli government will do nothing to protect its cities and borders, it will be overthrown, and a far more right winged party will take power. A right winged party that claims Israeli Arabs should be deported, that Palestinians should be treated with an iron fist, recently joined the coalition largely due to the world's failure to deal with the Hizbollah, the world's failure to deal with Iran, and the world's failure to see why Israel must protect itself.

Mark Uttech
11-14-2006, 04:06 AM
This is just a personal opinion as I watch my personal experience evolve. Beginning with incorporating "tikkun olam" (repair of the world) into my aikido practice, I began to study the middle
east arab/jew problem. The more I studied the troubles, the more I felt myself get drawn into a psychological and emotional quagmire, very much like a randori, but a randori that does not seem to end. Surprisingly, this helped my focus on basic practice, suwari waza. In randori we are taught to see the 'many as a single one' and go from there. Each single one is a whole world and the main practice becomes something simple to focus on: the practice of not being pulled off-balance. I'm sure there is more to it than quassam rockets.

In gassho,
mark

hapkidoike
11-14-2006, 05:15 AM
Does the fact that in every military operation, even operations that are clearly necessary for the short term and long term security of Israel, civilians lives are lost and tragedies occur, means Israel should cease all military activity?

Not necessarily, but the numbers do suggest that the Isrelies be more descriminate in their targets.

Amir Krause
11-14-2006, 05:26 AM
Actually Neil

I almost agree with your LAST POST. The importance of the Israeli-Arab confrontation is normally blown way out of proportion. See for example a recent UN report :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_11_06_alliance.pdf

How come the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and Afghanistan are the only confrontations mentioned, what about Sudan, Serbia ...

Societies are very strange entities, they are both divergent and uniform at the same time. A society can be in-fighting and at the same time hold a uniform front towards another. The Arab nation is a huge Society, with multiple internal divisions and fights and wars, yet, it also stands united with regard to some common perceived interests.


As far the first post in the thread by Mike Sigman. I would be careful in drawing any conclusions from this publication, since it seems to me it might be part of the internal Israeli political "straggle" over who among the officials and generals should pay for mishandling the war in Lebanon.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian issue in general. I believe this issue is much more complex then any of you describes. Each of you takes a position which implies one of the sides is "right" and the other is wrong. Reality never works this way. Both sides have just reasoning to some point, and each has done countless misdeeds and mistakes.
The absurdity of this matter is that the basic arguments both sides use today are the same. Both sides basically claim historic right on the same peace of land, and the right to live in it almost exclusively (again, this is a simplistic view, both societies have multiple subgroups and some are more willing to compromise others less).

Amir

Tom Fish
11-14-2006, 06:00 AM
While kidnapping would seem like an honorable negotiating technique to some people, and errantly aimed rockets are not considered an overt act by some people, how can it be accepted or supported that the overall goal of death to all Israelis is any kind of peace movement? I would accept a free dictionary if it would help me understand how Israel should not be allowed or supported in defending herself.Until then, I will continue to bumble along with my belief that the strong actions that Israel undertakes to thwart their demise are justified.
Tom Fish

Taliesin
11-14-2006, 08:43 AM
Tom

If you want to run a self-defence argument then follow the principles of self-defence in law. And while pre-emptive strikes may be legitimate, disproportionate use of force is not self-defence - eg if a ten year old child pushed you you are not entitled to hit him with a baseball bat and claim it's self defence.

Mike

Leaving aside the fact that this artice quoted is simply an opinion providing no objecitve evidence it hard to see what it proves - apart from that someone else doesn't know much history.

Amir

Fair Comment

Cady

Your belief that "Anti-Semitism and anti-Israel can't really be separated" is flawed. Israili's and Jews are two groups with hugely overlapping membership but until they become totally overlapping membership it is entitely possible to seperate. Have you ever heard the phrase

"Not in my name". Because I think Jews are just as capable of saying it as anyone else. Or are you suggesting Jews are not capable of saying it - well that's prejudice.

Mike Sigman
11-14-2006, 08:55 AM
If you want to run a self-defence argument then follow the principles of self-defence in law. And while pre-emptive strikes may be legitimate, disproportionate use of force is not self-defence - eg if a ten year old child pushed you you are not entitled to hit him with a baseball bat and claim it's self defence. However, it NOT a ten-year-old child. It's a tribal culture whose "civil laws" are actually a part of their religion.... including killing Jews and Christians as a written part of the religion.... and who continue to attack despite every overture the world has made to them. They feel emboldened because liberal elements in the West, particularly in Europe, actually take their side in the attacks against the age-old enemies of many Europeans.

The attempt to make a moral equivalency between the Jews and Arabs is absurd. That's the first ploy of the anti-Semites. The Jews have fought a defensive battle from the beginning. If the Arabs would quit attacking the Jews, there would be peace. It's that simple.


Mike Sigman

Tom Fish
11-14-2006, 09:31 AM
I think it would be appropriate to use the self defense argument for survival. If passing laws would stop terrorist attacks, sign em up. I'm all for any laws that say random attacks aimed at killing or maiming for any reason are no longer allowed. Pass some laws preventing mass murder in Darfur while we are at it. (Enforcing those laws by issuing resolutions have really been effective in the past) Passing laws giving away your right to defend yourself is quite another thing. Using playground rules will most likely not work with these issues as well. My belief is that the struggle is to survive and that until both sides try to find peace the struggle will go on.

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 10:22 AM
If I didn't know any better, this remark would make me think that you resent the fact that the countless Qassam missiles missed their human targets.

And, this assumption would be erroneous.

Does the fact that in every military operation, even operations that are clearly necessary for the short term and long term security of Israel, civilians lives are lost and tragedies occur, means Israel should cease all military activity?

Questions of extremes are hardly ways to measure reality. Here, let me show you:

Example: "Does the fact that more people die on US highways than all the World Wars, and the Civil War combined, mean that we should all avoid roads altogether, and stop using cars?"

You see? There is much more to the world, than black and white.

You must realize that parents from southern towns, who send their children to kindergarden and schools, not knowing if they will come back alive because they are targeted daily by Palestinian terrorists, cannot afford to have military activities ceased.

You must realize that there are many more Palestinians than Israeli's who don't know if their children will come back alive because they are targeted daily by the IDF terrorism and snipers...some of them, while they are sitting in class, learning.

If the Israeli government will do nothing to protect its cities and borders, it will be overthrown, and a far more right winged party will take power.

Again, this is fear talking. And fear leads to extremism. "We must destroy the world, in order to save it;" "My country: right or wrong."

The world is much more complex than that.

Personally, I think that Israel would get a lot farther in the world by building bridges, instead of Apartheid Walls.

A right winged party that claims Israeli Arabs should be deported, that Palestinians should be treated with an iron fist,

That's right: the right wing parties in Israel ARE extreme, too. Just look at who Olmert tapped for VP: the man wants to drown the Israeli Arabs in the Dead Sea...he'll even provide the buses. :grr:

y joined the coalition largely due to the world's failure to deal with the Hizbollah,

You mean...Israel's failure to deal with Hizbollah;

the world's failure to deal with Iran,

(quiz: WHICH nation, now armed with nuclear weapons, is bombing civilians, invading other countries and popping off cluster bombs like party-favors...? Is it

A. Iran; or B. Israel....

Now tell me, again: who is the"problem" of the MidEast?

Take your time...I'm a patient man...)

and the world's failure to see why Israel must protect itself.

and Israel's failure with its own occupational policy of collective punishment, coupled with its domestic policies of racism.

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 10:31 AM
Actually Neil


How come the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and Afghanistan are the only confrontations mentioned, what about Sudan, Serbia ...

I dunno about Afghanistan (as, it rarely gets coverage in the US); but I certainly agree about Sudan. That problem needs some major world attention, pronto.

Societies are very strange entities, they are both divergent and uniform at the same time. A society can be in-fighting and at the same time hold a uniform front towards another. The Arab nation is a huge Society, with multiple internal divisions and fights and wars, yet, it also stands united with regard to some common perceived interests.

Some, but you cannot gauge or predetermine the reactions or designs of a whole society or country, simply on the basis of religion.

Taliesin
11-14-2006, 10:32 AM
Tom

If you want to argue that 'self-defense' justifies any level of force against any level of threat - then you have just become a apologist for terrorism.

if you don't want to be a champion for terrorism it is essential that you accept the necessity for the limits of the law.

My point was self-defense cannot be disproportionate. And since you failed (or refused) to understand my last point, let me try another way. Me threatening to kick you in the head does not justify you firing a nuclear missile against me.

Saying self-defense must be proportionate is not the same thing as "Passing laws giving away your right to defend yourself".

As far as preventing mass murder in Darfour - The African troops did manage to at least minimize the killings - but then they were there legally.

Mike

"The Jews have fought a defensive battle from the beginning."

It wasn't Arabs who attacked British troops and bombed hotels back when Israel was under British Mandate so what do you mean the beginning?

Or is it that 'defensive' is yet another word you do not know the meaning of.

As far as the part that

"civil laws" are actually a part of their religion.... including killing Jews and Christians as a written part of the religion"

- please quote chapter and verse -

given your limited understanding of English vocabulary I am perfectly prepared to accept that English is not your native language.





And as far as attacks are concerned -

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 10:38 AM
While kidnapping would seem like an honorable negotiating technique to some people, and errantly aimed rockets are not considered an overt act by some people, how can it be accepted or supported that the overall goal of death to all Israelis is any kind of peace movement? I would accept a free dictionary if it would help me understand how Israel should not be allowed or supported in defending herself.

I'll have to remember to put up signs in my neighborhood, something like this:

"ATTENTION! In the midst of rampant crime and deteriorating conditions, I must put my security-needs foremost. Therefore, I am placing a security checkpoint at the beginning of our street; setting up snipers in the trees; and cutting off your water, to fill my swimming pool.

After all: security is strength, and I have to take any measures to protect myself. Sorry about the kids getting shot, in advance."


Until then, I will continue to bumble along with my belief that the strong actions that Israel undertakes to thwart their demise are justified.
Tom Fish

In other words: Israel can do no wrong. Thank you for your honesty. :yuck:

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm sure there is more to it than quassam rockets.

In gassho,
mark

Good post, Mark...I like the randori analogy. :cool:

Tom Fish
11-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Regardless of your trivializations of other points of view, Mr. Mick, you have adequately demonstrated that when defending your own point of view, you think it is necessary to go to the extremes. I think you may have also taken a slap at neighborhood watch programs and the people who volunteer to keep their neighbors safe. Give peace a chance.
Tom

David Orange
11-14-2006, 12:21 PM
Israel is 1/10th of 1% of the land in that region. So take a football field and Israel is 1/10th of the 1-yard line on that field. If the field is 30 yards wide (?) then Israel is 3 yards wide and 1 yard deep on a football field. All the rest is Arab "Muslim" land (much of that used to be "Christian" but in recent years, militant Islam has driven out many of the Christians and taken over areas that were once ruled by Christians). So effectively, you have a football field ruled by Islam and a 1x3 yard area ruled by Jews.

Is there any reason that small area should not be accepted on a football field? Turn it around: if they Jews owned a football field and Arabs occupied 1/10th of 1% of it, people would call the Jews "racist" for trying to remove the Arabs. And in fact, that's sort of what "the occupied territories" amount to. So why is is fair that the Arabs can try to throw Israel off the whole football field, but the Jews cannot control their own 1/10th of a percent of that field?

The Muslim rulers decree that it should not be accepted, that the Jews there should be killed or "thrown into the sea." Ever since the war of independence in 1948, they have tried to do just that.

Which leads to "the occupied territories. Out of Israel's 1/3 yard space on the football field, some fringe areas of about half-a-yard-by-half-a-yard and 8 x 10 inches are the "homelands" of the "Palestinian" people.

Now, before the war of independence, the word "Palestinian" always meant a Jew living in Palestine. From Herzl's time until the war of independence, "Palestinian" meant a Jew. At the time of the war of independence, about 700,000 Jews were cast out of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other areas where they had lived for 2000 years. And from the new land of Israel, about 750,000 Arabs fled (for various reasons) to Gaza and the West Bank (the Arab parts of the Palestinian Mandate). Israel absorbed many of the Jews that were forced from the surrounding muslim lands, but those muslim lands would not accept the Arabs who had left Palestine. They have been made a stateless people and held in camps by the international Arab leadership that finds them more useful as pitiful refugees than as productive, happy citizens of an Arab state. And the world focuses on those tiny fragments of Israel's tiny bit of the vast field of the Arab world. Israel is called a criminal for keeping the Arabs as refugees in those tiny strips of land though the Arab nations could absorb all of them in a breath. But even when the refugees are allowed into other countries, such as Jordan and Lebanon, they are still kept in camps, which are well known hotbeds of violence and insurgency. It is the will of the Arab/Muslim world that they remain forever as refugees or until Israel is abolished.

Further, the Israeli fringe areas of Gaza and the West Bank are highly permeable to terrorists from all the rest of the Arab football field. Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians all filter into the West Bank and Gaza and, from those areas launch incessant attacks, bombings and rockets. Infiltrators come into Israel's 1x3 yard space on the field. They kidnap young boys and girls, mutilate them, behead them, stab and shoot them. They creep into families homes and murder them as they did the athletes in Munich.

So if you tell me you're going to kick me in the head, am I right to nuke you? Maybe not. But if you are 999 times my size and you threaten to kill me (after many, many violent attempts to do just that), I think you deserve a rock right between the eyes.

David

Luc X Saroufim
11-14-2006, 02:01 PM
i will never understand why there is such a clear divide between Israeli and Lebanese interests. they are one and the same:

- a stable, Democratic, anti-Syrian government under Fouad Siniora can basically guarantee Israeli's safety with regards to Lebanon. Faced with ultimatums and threats, and faced with 4 bombings outside his office in Beirut, he still refused to let Nasrallah's party have veto power.

- as a counter-move, the Shiite's resigned from Siniora's cabinet. now, it is basically powerless once again.

there are two things to take note of:

- Siniora's government was much stronger before the war this summer

- if Israel fights Hezbollah again, it will fail again, and will basically guarantee Shi'ite power. this is my worst nightmare for Lebanon.

i don't understand why the US and Israel are not confronting Syria directly about Hezzy. sure, Iran and has nukes, but they also have the oil. fair enough. Syria, however, they can do something about, and if they isolate syria economically, they will weaken Hezbollah.

i am 100% in favour of Israeli overflights over Lebanon, so long as there are no more attacks.

i hate syria and hezbollah with a passion; i hate what they have done with Lebanon.

Lebanon needs HELP. it is not guilty of anything, it is just weak. it wants to be peaceful and democratic, but it needs help from the west and it is not getting it at all.

there's one thing i don't understand: i read "Haaretz" online, and it is very informative with a good Israeli POV. what i don't understand is that Siniora gets slammed left and right. a strong Siniora government is the best thing for Lebanon *and* for Israel.

Luc X Saroufim
11-14-2006, 02:23 PM
It is the Jewish homeland on many levels. Heck, their ancestral temple is smack in the middle of Jerusalem -- the city their ancient king built. ..

my dad can beat up your dad. my martial art is more complex than your martial art. my country's history dates back further than yours. your country is a bunch of ignorant haters, while mine stands for justice.

IMO, all parties in the Middle East have created enough injustices to virtually cancel each other out. Palestinians, Lebanese, Israeli's, Syrians, have all killed and maimed at some point or another. there is no argument here, it all goes back to zero.

and let's actually be productive and concentrate on giving all families a place to call home, without fear of being shot or killed on your way to school. who cares where John the Baptist baptized Jesus. what does that have to do with anything?



and at the establishment of Israel, they suddenly became pariahs -- in Syria, Iraq, Persian Iran, and virtually ALL Arab and Muslim countries, they are treated as worse than 2nd-class citizens.
.

I'm guessing Lieberman will not sink to this level when dealing with the Arabs. he is your main party leader, after all.


The issue is not whether or not Israel is legitimate, but that Arabs want complete and total dominion of the Middle East, and Israel is a bone in their throat. We, in our comfy Western homes, like to pay lip service without understanding what it's like to walk in Israelis' shoes. The liberal press (NPR, etc.) rarely if ever represents Israel's point of view in their reporting; it's the view of the Arabs they project. Israel and the Jewish people fight and struggle daily for the very right to exist in a world that resents them.
.

wow, so many generalizations rolled up into a nice paragraph.

i spent my childhood in Lebanon and was never taught to hate Israel. in fact, some Lebanese get insulted when you call them Arabs :) so, who, exactly, are these "Arabs?" Like you said, there are 700M of them, and you have to be more specific.




Israel doesn't need to apologize to anyone for anything, nor explain itself or the actions it takes to preserve its life.

an elitist point of view. every nation can be guilty of doing something wrong.

RoyK
11-14-2006, 02:36 PM
Hi Neil, in reply to your post:


Questions of extremes are hardly ways to measure reality. Here, let me show you:

Example: "Does the fact that more people die on US highways than all the World Wars, and the Civil War combined, mean that we should all avoid roads altogether, and stop using cars?"

Those who misuse their drivers license and endanger other drivers and pedestrian should be removed from the road, yes.


You must realize that there are many more Palestinians than Israeli's who don't know if their children will come back alive because they are targeted daily by the IDF terrorism and snipers...some of them, while they are sitting in class, learning.

I don't believe children are targeted by IDF. The main difference is that when we fail by hitting children, they fail by not hitting children.

At any rate, Palestinians children and adults alike, victims of crossfire, get treated for free in Israeli hospitals. Infact as we speak, while palestinians parade with bodies of their dead children infront of the cameras, Israeli doctors in Tel Aviv are fighting for the lives of their wounded ones. I'm not claiming for altruism, but this act should clearly demonstrate that Israel is not interested, even more, I believe no one can claim that Israel's interests are even served by killing innocent civilian population.

Personally, I think that Israel would get a lot farther in the world by building bridges, instead of Apartheid Walls.

I don't like the separtion wall much more than you do. I know policy makers use it to displace population, create enclaves within palestinian territory and predetermine the future borders between Israel and a future palestinian country. But the separation has been successful at thwarting suicide bombers and terrorists from entering Israel, by making their trip longer, thus allowing security agencies to stop them. Preventing suicide bombers does more than save lives, it prevents an escalation in military actions against palestinians and escalation in right wing voters.
I don't know if the pros measure against the cons in this case, but indeed, things are more than black and white.



That's right: the right wing parties in Israel ARE extreme, too. Just look at who Olmert tapped for VP: the man wants to drown the Israeli Arabs in the Dead Sea...he'll even provide the buses. :grr:

I totally agree with you, this man makes me shriek whenever he opens his big mouth... :uch:


You mean...Israel's failure to deal with Hizbollah;

I mean the total failure of the UN to uphold resolution 1701, under which Israel agreed to cease fire and stop dealing with the Hizbollah.



quiz: WHICH nation, now armed with nuclear weapons, is bombing civilians, invading other countries and popping off cluster bombs like party-favors...? Is it

A. Iran; or B. Israel....

Now tell me, again: who is the"problem" of the MidEast?

Hm, I say all of the above, since Iran clearly arms and sponsors the Hizbollah, and I'm pretty sure it has allot to do with the terrorism tearing up Iraq. True, they're not armed yet with nuclear weapons, but Ahmadinejad says we won't have to wait longer than March 2007.

Oh, I have my own quiz. Which UN member nation is openly calling for the destruction of another UN member nation?
A. Iran B. hmm, the palestinian leadership isn't a nation or a UN member yet, but they meet the rest of the qualifications.



and Israel's failure with its own occupational policy of collective punishment, coupled with its domestic policies of racism.

I agree Israel gets a very low grade in all of the above.

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Regardless of your trivializations of other points of view, Mr. Mick, you have adequately demonstrated that when defending your own point of view, you think it is necessary to go to the extremes.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Fish, esp when you go from

My belief is that the struggle is to survive and that until both sides try to find peace the struggle will go on.

to

I would accept a free dictionary if it would help me understand how Israel should not be allowed or supported in defending herself.

Now, please tell me again...which person is using "extremes?"

I call 'em the way I see 'em. The logical end-result of your argument, applied to my neighborhood, would be a rationalization of hiring snipers to patrol my neighborhood.

Now, if you find that extreme: I agree. But, I humbly suggest that you look in the mirror, to find extremism in debate.

I am merely pointing out the natural end-result, of your argument.

I think you may have also taken a slap at neighborhood watch programs and the people who volunteer to keep their neighbors safe

Only if you're attempting to take my words out of context. You wouldn't be trying to do that, would you? :blush:

Luc X Saroufim
11-14-2006, 02:49 PM
I don't believe children are targeted by IDF. Infact, whenever civilians get hurt in the crossfire, and that is the main difference. We fail by hitting children, they fail by not hitting children.
At any rate, Palestinians, children and adults alike, get treated for free in Israeli hospitals. I'm not claiming for altruism, but this act should clearly demonstrate that Israel is not interested in killing innocent civilian population.


i agree, this argument is overhyped and is used to fuel more hatred. especially in Lebanon, Hezbollah is capitalizing on the humanitarian situation to win popular support. Israel would never have to attack in the first place if.......

more of a reason for US/Israel to support Siniora. Siniora lives in the future, while Shi'ites make it clear they live in the past

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 02:53 PM
Those who misuse their drivers license and endanger other drivers and pedestrian should be removed from the road, yes.

Nope. You misunderstood my intent. Emphasis on the word "all:"

Example: "Does the fact that more people die on US highways than all the World Wars, and the Civil War combined, mean that we should all avoid roads altogether, and stop using cars?"

I don't believe children are targeted by IDF. Infact, whenever civilians get hurt in the crossfire, and that is the main difference.

Oh really? Then, what about the kids who were shot by IDF snipers, WHILE INSIDE, STUDYING?

What about the kids on their way to school, shot at checkpoints?

What about the family of 6, bombed while picnicking on the beach?

I can go on and on and on, but the fact of the matter is that the IDF IS shooting at children, and this can mean only one of 2 things:

1. The IDF is intentionally shooting at children; or
2. The IDF is incompetent, and people should be fired, jailed, or (at the least) replaced.

So, which is it?

Oh, of course: you can go on denying the reality on the ground. That seems to work, for some... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We fail by hitting children, they fail by not hitting children.


The IDF fails by shooting children; suicide bombers (ultimately) fail by killing children. It's very important to get your pronouns right. :p

At any rate, Palestinians, children and adults alike, get treated for free in Israeli hospitals.

When they aren't illegally and semi-permanently jailed....oh, sorry! :freaky: I meant "given administrative (and indefinite) detention." :grr:

I'm not claiming for altruism, but this act should clearly demonstrate that Israel is not interested in killing innocent civilian population.

Believe me, if I had the time: I could show you reams of documentation on the IDF killing innocent children. Unfortunately, I've gotta dash and teach class.

To be continued...

Luc X Saroufim
11-14-2006, 03:05 PM
I can go on and on and on, but the fact of the matter is that the IDF IS shooting at children, and this can mean only one of 2 things:

1. The IDF is intentionally shooting at children; or
2. The IDF is incompetent, and people should be fired, jailed, or (at the least) replaced.


Neil,

if you remember from your WWIII thread, i was saying almost the same things about the IDF, but i am quite shameful about it now.

unless you have direct, audio-taped evidence that shows a clear order to shoot children, then it is too bold of a statement to make.

the only thing dead children proves is how terrible war is, and how it needs to stop not tomorrow, not after breakfast, but NOW. on all sides.

Israel just happens to have weapons that are highly capable of death and destruction. how would others use these weapons?

and while i will never think anything good about Olmert and his government, neither do millions of Israeli's.

Steve Mullen
11-14-2006, 03:52 PM
Mike, that snip was part of a bigger post that i chose to delete and i dont know how you actually saw that snippet. i chose to delete it because, whilst i dont agree fully with what you are saying, i thoguht it was a bit of a harsh interpretation of what you were trying to say which was written when i was in a real stinking mood.

Steve Mullen
11-14-2006, 03:55 PM
Hmmmmmm..... I can't see where anyone said that. Maybe some remedial reading comprehension?

The point is that the UN and the countries that *insisted* on a cease-fire, but never enforced it, continue to look like the anti-Israeli, anti-Semites that the Europeans (and others) most definitely were in World War II.

Look at the "cease-fire" and the BS enforcement of it. Hezbollah is re-armed. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned. And so on. Nothing said or guaranteed by any Islamic country can ever be counted on. All they understand is extreme force; all the years of aid, "diplomacy", "hearts and minds", etc., have only wound up costing more lives, more money, and less safety. Exactly the lesson the Europeans should have learned from World War II.

The problem being that all the Europeans that insisted on "appeasement now", which ultimately resulted in 50 million deaths, never stepped forward to say "we wuz wrong". They were allowed to escape having to face their own responsibilities. And now, once again, the liberal Europeans are helping lead the appeasement route, even though all the signs are there... once again.

FWIW

Mike


see this is what i was mostly talking about in my post. once again you have skipped the fact that there have been many americans supporting the cease fire, both publically and otherwise. This seems to be totally missed out of your posts.

Mike Sigman
11-14-2006, 04:03 PM
Mike, that snip was part of a bigger post that i chose to delete and i dont know how you actually saw that snippet. When you post to a thread that people are being notified about "new posts", your original message goes out to them, Steve.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
11-14-2006, 06:36 PM
<i>Israel doesn't need to apologize to anyone for anything, nor explain itself or the actions it takes to preserve its life.</i>
Luc wrote: an elitist point of view. every nation can be guilty of doing something wrong.

Not my intended meaning, Luc. I'm saying that Israel is fighting for its very existance, and Jews have to sue for their very right to be allowed to exist, period. Under those circumstances, you have to act first. There is no second chance when those surrounding you intend to annihilate you.

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 09:04 PM
1. The IDF is intentionally shooting at children; or
2. The IDF is incompetent, and people should be fired, jailed, or (at the least) replaced.


unless you have direct, audio-taped evidence that shows a clear order to shoot children, then it is too bold of a statement to make.

Oh, so I need direct, audio-taped evidence to surmise either that the IDF is intentionally shooting at children; or is incompetent???

Please. All I have to do is turn on the news:

Gaza children cannot escape as Israel mounts its bloodiest attack in months (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=713674)

Eighteen Palestinian civilians, most of them women and children from the same family, have been killed as they tried to flee a barrage of Israeli artillery shells fired on and around the house where they had been sleeping minutes earlier.

The victims were killed by an estimated 10 to 12 155mm shells which landed on Beit Hanoun less than 24 hours after troops had ended a six-day ground incursion into the northern Gaza town aimed at stopping militants firing Qassam rockets into Israel.

All but one of the dead were members of the Athamneh family and included six children under 16. They were killed when they rushed out into the dirt road beside their four-storey building after the first shell struck, punching a hole two feet in diameter through the roof. Large puddles in the road were still dark with blood five hours after the attack.

The IDF said it "regrets any event in which uninvolved [people] are hurt" while insisting that the "responsibility for civilian casualties" lay with factions who launched Qassam rockets " from the shelter of populated areas". But in an implicit explanation that the killings were caused by human or technical error, the military said the artillery fire was "directed at a location distant from the one reportedly hit".

Gosh, wiping out a family, instead of hitting the target sure sounds like "incompetent" to me...but I guess I need more "audio-taped evidence that shows a clear order to shoot children," to make this claim, right? :grr:

Are Babies Legitimate Targets in the Gaza Strip? (http://bbsnews.net/article.php/2006111412245934)

She continued talking with a tone of anger and stress. What really angered her is the fact that the Israelis knew there were children in the house. "It was one day when the soldiers were inside our home and they imposed siege on us, they didn't let us go out and they kept telling us to shut up or they were going to shoot us. The soldiers purposely kept scaring the children by pointing their weapons at them. The children were not even allowed to go to the bathroom while the soldiers were there." Holding a Palestinian flag in her hands she said, "This is the reason we are being killed, we are Palestinians. The soldiers are angry because we have the flag of our country." The Israeli soldiers told her they did not want Palestinians to live. While crying, she put the bullet-ridden Palestinian flag back on the wall saying, "But Israel who kills innocents will not kill the spirit of the Palestinians who remain alive. Shame on America which provides Israel with weapons. Shame on America for remaining silent while their Israeli allies murder innocent civilians and commit crimes against humanity. She then prepared to go to another one of many funerals in occupied Palestine

Palestine Today - October 31, 2006 (http://www.imemc.org/content/view/22369/161/)

Qabha was detained as he joined several residents who gathered peacefully awaiting the release of a two-year old child, named Aisha Al Holadly, and her mother at the Ofer Israeli detention facility. Etaf Oleyyan, the mother of Aisha, is under administrative detention orders and her husband Waleed Al Hodaly is a freed detainee.
Waleed, the minister and several other residents also gathered near Ofer awaiting an Israeli response to an appeal filed by Etaf against renewing her administrative detention order for the third time, and demanding to be freed with her infant.

Gaza military siege ‘made in USA' (http://www.workers.org/2006/world/gaza-1116/)

Operation "Autumn Cloud"—the Israeli offensive against the population in the Gaza Strip—began on Nov. 1. Within six days, some 57 Palestinian women, men and children had been killed and hundreds more wounded.

I could easily fill pages with accounts of the IDF (and IAF) murdering children. A search engine and a determined 3rd grader could do it.

Do I need some "audio-taped, full-bore-smoking-gun-trail" to show that the IDF is culpable? Where I come from, ppl, AND gov't's, are supposed to be responsible, for the things that they do...even the mistakes.

If a child gets killed once in awhile in the line of fire...OK, war is hell. I'll buy that.

But, to pooh-pooh these habitual and regular-as-clockwork murders as "oh, well: that's just war-biz" is to dehumanize and devalue the lives of those who were victims of the IDF.

And, I'm sorry that you feel comfortable doing that, Luc. :(

the only thing dead children proves is how terrible war is, and how it needs to stop not tomorrow, not after breakfast, but NOW. on all sides.

Israel just happens to have weapons that are highly capable of death and destruction. how would others use these weapons?

Yeah: poor, poor Israel...what's a client-state with a mad-on for collective punishment, and anointed by the Superpower with a carte-blanche, no holds-barred, illegal Occupation going to do? :mad:

and while i will never think anything good about Olmert and his government, neither do millions of Israeli's.

Yes...Israeli's, IMO, are beginning to see the folly of Occupation. It hurts them as much as it does the Palestinian's, in sum.

P.S. Happy birthday, Luc. Mine is coming up, soon. :cool:

Neil Mick
11-14-2006, 09:24 PM
And now, back to YOU, Roy...where's that whuppin' stick? :D

But the separation has been successful at thwarting suicide bombers and terrorists from entering Israel, by making their trip longer, thus allowing security agencies to stop them. Preventing suicide bombers does more than save lives, it prevents an escalation in military actions against palestinians and escalation in right wing voters.
I don't know if the pros measure against the cons in this case, but indeed, things are more than black and white.

Uh huh. OK, suppose you were my neighbor. And, one day I come by to tell you that because of security problems I'll be needing to build a huge wall through your property, bisecting your front yard. The resulting structure would mean that you'd have to walk out the back door and walk 6 blocks around it, just to get to your car.

But, this would be OK for you, right? I mean...it WOULD keep out the burglars, murderers, and potential suicide bombers, after all...you wouldn't mind that, would you?

After all, things ARE more than simple black and white (i.e., when I invade your property: you need to take the bigger issues, into account. No need to be thinking of yourself, after all...look at the big picture! :p This wall will make ALL of us safer! And besides, you always complained about the view... :D )

I totally agree with you, this man makes me shriek whenever he opens his big mouth... :uch:

Yeah, you should...and, he's now your veep...what does THAT tell ya?? :uch:

I mean the total failure of the UN to uphold resolution 1701, under which Israel agreed to cease fire and stop dealing with the Hizbollah.

And I mean the total failure of Israel, to deal with Hezbollah. You bombed Lebanon back to the stone age; spreading cluster bombs in your wake; violating the ceasefire agreement whenever you could...and, where did all that get you?

Nothing. Worse than nothing.

Hm, I say all of the above, since Iran clearly arms and sponsors the Hizbollah, and I'm pretty sure it has allot to do with the terrorism tearing up Iraq. True, they're not armed yet with nuclear weapons, but Ahmadinejad says we won't have to wait longer than March 2007.

I'm far, far more worried about the US and Israeli terror, than I am about Iranian terror. Just look at the body-count so far: I'd say we're beating the Iranian's in human rights crimes and violations by a mile. :dead:

Oh, I have my own quiz. Which UN member nation is openly calling for the destruction of another UN member nation?
A. Iran B. hmm, the palestinian leadership isn't a nation or a UN member yet, but they meet the rest of the qualifications.

Ok, I can play that game too. Which UN member nation(s) have actually gone on and invaded and systematically destroyed another UN member nation?

(hint: neither of them have Islam listed as their state religion...)

Go ahead...take your time answering. As I said...I'm a patient man... evileyes

I agree Israel gets a very low grade in all of the above.

Thank you! WE can agree on that point, at least. :cool:

Taliesin
11-15-2006, 03:16 AM
To David Orange

Clever post. Totally invalid reasoning - but then you know that.

Whilst you may find it convenient to lump the entire middle east together as "Arabs against Israel" you are aware that at the moment Iraq isn't against anyone except mostly other Iraqi's ,the last war they were aggressors in was about the Invasion of Kuwait. The last war Iran fought was against Iraq. Afghanistan isn't attacking Israel either. And while Egypt may have support attacks against Israel in 1948 it's president won a joint Nobel peace prize in the 1970s (so maybe things change)

You argument seems to be "they're all Arabs" That's like arguing that if Holland declares war France, Germany, & Britain will all automatically support it because "They're all white. (Hitler apparently thought that Britain would support him given the links between the countries).

So we know that Israel aren't facing an enemy 999 times larger than themselves(even before we consider the disparity of weaponry in Israel's favour). All of which leaves you arguing that there is a threat to Israeli's - which I accept - therefore anything they do whilst claiming to defend themselves must be justified (the end justifies the means - where have I heard that before)an argument I do not accept as valid.

As far as the denial of nationality - you're right and the worst of the lot is Lebanon which denies nationality even to Palestinians who were born there.

On the other hand does the USA automatically give nationality to every refugee in their country, I know Britain doesn't.

Luc X Saroufim
11-15-2006, 06:20 AM
And, I'm sorry that you feel comfortable doing that, Luc. :(



feel sorry for me because my country is mutilated, not because i'm trying to move on :)

Neil, look at your WWIII thread. needless to say, i was angry. but if Lebanese people stayed angry and preached hate, we would have never lasted as a country. after 30 years of nightmares and devastation, it is love and pride that keeps us going. not finger pointing and hatred. go to Lebanon, Neil, and you'll understand. everyone has lost a loved one. everyone has a story of a bomb that almost killed them. we are tired, we are sick of war. no more hatred. no more killing.





P.S. Happy birthday, Luc. Mine is coming up, soon. :cool:

thanks :cool:

RoyK
11-15-2006, 07:29 AM
"The Jews have fought a defensive battle from the beginning."

It wasn't Arabs who attacked British troops and bombed hotels back when Israel was under British Mandate so what do you mean the beginning?

Allow me to fix several inaccuracies..
Israel was established AFTER the British Mandate, you are referring to the "Jewish settlement". But since the original argument was referring to the Jewish national and not the Israeli national, that's not to falsify the argument.

However, those who bombed hotels were members of seperatists militant organizations that were out of the Jewish Settlement concensus, and were (and still are) considered terrorists by Jews and Israel.
You can't take the exception of a group and apply its behavior to the group, it's unfair.

Luc X Saroufim
11-15-2006, 07:39 AM
You can't take the exception of a group and apply its behavior to the group, it's unfair.

tell me about it! :D

RoyK
11-15-2006, 08:01 AM
Uh huh. OK, suppose you were my neighbor. And, one day I come by to tell you that because of security problems I'll be needing to build a huge wall through your property, bisecting your front yard. The resulting structure would mean that you'd have to walk out the back door and walk 6 blocks around it, just to get to your car.

Allow me to correct the analogy. Suppose you were my neighbor. Now, suppose your sons and daughters systematically invade my house to cause all sorts of inconveniences and risk my family's life. Suppose you do nothing to stop them, then yes, I would build a huge wall to keep them out, or move to a friendlier neighborhood (as suggested by Iran's president).

I agreed with the second part(I wouldn't want you to walk 6 blocks to your car), and I mentioned that I find the wall's outline disputable, but that doesn't change the fact that I need to keep your children off my family's throats.


Yeah, you should...and, he's now your veep...what does THAT tell ya?? :uch:
That any future negotiation between Israel and the PLO will have to be conducted through and with heavy international pressure, which won't happen, which is pretty sad.


You bombed Lebanon back to the stone age; spreading cluster bombs in your wake; violating the ceasefire agreement whenever you could...and, where did all that get you?
They violate the ceasefire by rearming and regrouping, Israel violates it by taking pictures of them doing so, and Israel's the one getting threats by the French. Talk about bias!


Ok, I can play that game too. Which UN member nation(s) have actually gone on and invaded and systematically destroyed another UN member nation?

What is the Hizbollah if not an Iranian proxy trying to bring down the Lebanese government RIGHT NOW? During the war, Even Lebanese ministers blamed the Hizbollah for what has happened.
AND If you recall correctly, Hizbollah warriors invaded Israel to ambush and kidnap Israeli soldiers. Later they went on to rain a hellstorm of missiles that killed many, destroyed many and crippled the economy of Israel. Tally two for Iran.




Thank you! WE can agree on that point, at least.
I never claim that Israel is not an active party in the chaos around it. The current Israeli government is an expert at doing things the wrong way, but that doesn't mean it is the only source of problem in the region. It takes more than one trouble maker to start a gang war...

I think you would be surprised at the amount of basic principles you and I share.

RoyK
11-15-2006, 08:10 AM
more of a reason for US/Israel to support Siniora. Siniora lives in the future, while Shi'ites make it clear they live in the past

Luc, Ever heard of the term "Bear hug"? If Israel's current government (I assume its not very popular in Lebanon) would openly support Siniora, that would probably bury him politically!

I honestly hope Israel is working behind the stages to support him and the Lebanese government.

Luc X Saroufim
11-15-2006, 08:11 AM
What is the Hizbollah if not an Iranian proxy trying to bring down the Lebanese government RIGHT NOW? During the war, Even Lebanese ministers blamed the Hizbollah for what has happened.
AND If you recall correctly, Hizbollah warriors invaded Israel to ambush and kidnap Israeli soldiers. Later they went on to rain a hellstorm of missiles that killed many, destroyed many and crippled the economy of Israel. Tally two for Iran.

I never claim that Israel is not an active party in the chaos around it. The current Israeli government is an expert at doing things the wrong way, but that doesn't mean it is the only source of problem in the region. It takes more than one trouble maker to start a gang war...


i agree with every word in this statement.


I think you would be surprised at the amount of basic principles you and I share.

as i've mentioned before, the government of Foud Siniora and Ehud Olmert are one and the same. they are the only democratic governments in the middle East, and they both have a very common enemy in Iran..

Amir Krause
11-15-2006, 08:18 AM
If you want to run a self-defense argument then follow the principles of self-defense in law. And while pre-emptive strikes may be legitimate, disproportionate use of force is not self-defense - eg if a ten year old child pushed you are not entitled to hit him with a baseball bat and claim it's self defense.


This type of examples is invalid once discussing countries or even societies. It is inherently flawed analogy.
One simple example is often all societies are paralyzed due to a significant threat to a random very small segment of the individuals in the community. The above phenomena is often described as "terror". You are probably thinking of the violent issue we discuss, but my example refers to society reaction to a disease threat just the same.
This type of a situation makes a small sustainable loss for the country un-acceptable for the members of the population and thus the governments are forced to react to it. And when looking at the reaction it is by definition disproportional to the overall risk, since it stems from the fear of the individuals.
Further, as Neil previously implied. Societies are not that coherent, thus any analogy to a single entity is flawed.

In this particular case, the situation described in the analogy is also misleading. Had you would have liked a more realistic description of the situation, based on this inherently flawed analogy it would have gone:
Your 10 years old is holding a small knife and continuously stabs you with it. Each stab does not inflict much damage, as he often misses altogether, and has yet to hit anything vital. His larger brothers are standing near by, encouraging him, waiting for you to weaken before they join the fight and in the meanwhile. Whenever you succeed in taking away the knife, they give a newer bigger knife to the child and denounce you as a child molester for your actions. A crowd gathers around and follows the lead of those brothers.
When you try to defend yourself, your actions are not selective, and you often hit him way stronger then a single stab is worth. Further, you sometimes lose patience with this situation and try to stop it once and for all, but, while capable, you are not willing to kill the child, and anything you do, if he does not return to attack you by himself, then one or another of his brothers pushes him to return.
The above analogy is also flawed, it implies the Palestinian do not have valid reasons for the dispute. As I previously wrote, their reasoning is exactly as valid as the Israeli one, both are based on the exact same rationality.




The attempt to make a moral equivalency between the Jews and Arabs is absurd. That's the first ploy of the anti-Semites. The Jews have fought a defensive battle from the beginning. If the Arabs would quit attacking the Jews, there would be peace. It's that simple.
Wish I were as confident as you are of the good-heartiness of all Israelis. We have racists here too, and crazies too. There are too many war-mongers among the Israeli side for my being sure of anything.


Some, but you cannot gauge or predetermine the reactions or designs of a whole society or country, simply on the basis of religion.

Agree


Israel is not interested, even more, I believe no one can claim that Israel's interests are even served by killing innocent civilian population.

I can easily state the above very vehemently, as far as pure intentions go.
But I must admit Israel is also much more willing to accept Palestinian significant tolls of death in order of preventing a minor toll of Israeli dead. And in some cases, ineptitude, loss of care and similar negligence is apparent when the issue of Palestinian lives let alone welfare is concerned.
Then again, one should remember the last few Israeli Govt. have been over affected by the US concept of capitalism and significantly reduced the funding of all internal Israeli social care and infrastructure. Thus, it is not surprising there no resources to care for the Palestinians.


Wrote some more, but it got lost :-/

Luc
Wish for peace, particularly Israel and Lebanon.

Amir

Luc X Saroufim
11-15-2006, 08:25 AM
Luc, Ever heard of the term "Bear hug"? If Israel's current government (I assume its not very popular in Lebanon) would openly support Siniora, that would probably bury him politically!

I honestly hope Israel is working behind the stages to support him and the Lebanese government.

me too; and the rubix cube if Mideast Politics continues :uch: someone always has to get the shaft....



Luc
Wish for peace, particularly Israel and Lebanon.

Amir

Amen. unfortunately, nothing but a string of bad news for Israel and Lebanon lately. Iran is riding a huge wave of momentum right now, with questionable intentions.

Amir Krause
11-15-2006, 08:59 AM
Luc, Ever heard of the term "Bear hug"? If Israel's current government (I assume its not very popular in Lebanon) would openly support Siniora, that would probably bury him politically!

I honestly hope Israel is working behind the stages to support him and the Lebanese government.


Actually, given the current Israeli Govt. prooven success in achieving all its goals, I hope The Israeli Govt. decide on supporting HA and doing everything in Israel political power to force Siniora to resign.
With such talented leaders, Enemies are not necessary :yuck:

Amir

Amir Krause
11-15-2006, 09:15 AM
To David Orange

Clever post. Totally invalid reasoning - but then you know that.

Whilst you may find it convenient to lump the entire middle east together as "Arabs against Israel" you are aware that at the moment Iraq isn't against anyone except mostly other Iraqi's ,the last war they were aggressors in was about the Invasion of Kuwait. The last war Iran fought was against Iraq. Afghanistan isn't attacking Israel either. And while Egypt may have support attacks against Israel in 1948 it's president won a joint Nobel peace prize in the 1970s (so maybe things change)

You argument seems to be "they're all Arabs" That's like arguing that if Holland declares war France, Germany, & Britain will all automatically support it because "They're all white. (Hitler apparently thought that Britain would support him given the links between the countries).

So we know that Israel aren't facing an enemy 999 times larger than themselves(even before we consider the disparity of weaponry in Israel's favour). All of which leaves you arguing that there is a threat to Israeli's - which I accept - therefore anything they do whilst claiming to defend themselves must be justified (the end justifies the means - where have I heard that before)an argument I do not accept as valid.

As far as the denial of nationality - you're right and the worst of the lot is Lebanon which denies nationality even to Palestinians who were born there.

On the other hand does the USA automatically give nationality to every refugee in their country, I know Britain doesn't.


Right and very true, The Arab/Muslim world is not uniform, as Neil constantly indicates. In fact, inter-Arab/Muslim fights and disputes have caused many more murders, deaths, injuries and civil-violations to Arabs then Israel has done, this is true in the last year and probably in each of the proceeding years as well.
So, how can Israel be such a central issue? Why do you see so many UN decisions against Israel in a number disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem ?

Further, how can it be that many UN member states still refuse to recognize Israel right to exist and automatically vote against Israel in every topic, once their own specific interest is not of concern.


And talking of UN and Refugees. Are the Palestinian refugees really different then all others. I recently read an article claiming the UN treatment of refugees is divided to Palestinian and others. In a manner that perpetuates only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not necessarily for the Palestinians own benefit. According to the article:
- The UN has a separate agency to take care of Palestinian refugees.
- The definition of a Palestinian refugee is different, containing all Arabs who lived here since 1946 (Israel is a state since 48) and lost their homes, and all next generations born later, children, grand-children etc. for ever. Other refugees need to be locals of a conflict, disregarding their nationality and their children are not considered refugees.
- The UN tries to settle most refugees in the places they arrived to, and gain them the local nationality. But Palestinian refugees are kept in camps.

The other refugees includes Turks from Greek, Cyprus Greeks and Turks, Sudanese in the current conflict, Kosovo conflict refugees etc.
Can anyone validate or disprove this article. It made me wonder.

Amir

Amir Krause
11-15-2006, 09:51 AM
I can go on and on and on, but the fact of the matter is that the IDF IS shooting at children, and this can mean only one of 2 things:

1. The IDF is intentionally shooting at children; or
2. The IDF is incompetent, and people should be fired, jailed, or (at the least) replaced.


The answer is 2. But just like all the previous issues you mentioned. There are no black and whites here either, reality is complex !

In fact, in some clear cases Israeli soldiers were even tried and sent to jail due to Palestinian deaths. I am still waiting to hear of Hamas Govt. sending anyone to jail due to his killing Israelis.

But, of course, Neal, you did not mean a few low level soldiers, but rather the Generals. In this regard, my answer is two folded:
a. I wish we had better Generals and soldiers, who would have been able to supply better security to Israel at a much lower price on both sides.
b. As already discussed in the WWIII thread. Whom should we replace the leaders and Generals with? As far as I recall, you were equally against the actions of any other nation who reacted to a similar though much easier situation (No immediate threat to existence).
Thus, given a very difficult situation to which non seems to have responded significantly better (not proposals but actual actions). Is it really fair to complain?


I strongly wish for peace. This was the reason I supported Israel FULL withdraw from Gaza. I heard the right wing objecting to it and claiming the Palestinians would understand it as a victory achieved by force and resort to using more force, in order to remove all Jews leaving here. But I preferred to hope the Palestinians will be smarter, and will act to disprove those claims. I hoped the Palestinians to seize their territory and start constructing, I hoped they will stop shooting rockets at Israel from there. I hoped for a fight conducted with peaceful means.
That would have been a great starting point. And would have given great internal support in Israel for a second step. Probably, the end result would not have been the Palestine they wish for, but a dialog would have given them a very good compromise.
To many (not all) Palestinians made a different choice. Instead of returning the gesture with a similar one, and trying to prove they can live in peace with Israel. They chose to continue with the war path, rather then move to a peaceful solution. I am sure you will try to put the blame on some Israeli action, but consider the magnitude of the withdrawal from Gaza, and removing the settlers, was there really any act of aggression in that magnitude afterwards?

The major current concern as far as Israel Govt. cares is the Rockets that are fired on Israel on a daily basis. The Govt. and Israeli public opinion is not ready for a second withdrawal unless the first step is shown to bring quiet and peace. Thus, the Govt. is only left with sending the army to do this job.
Now we go back to your question. I have yet to hear of an efficient military way to stop the Rockets, without killing innocents:
In flight interception is currently technologically unfeasible (I asked people who know something of some of the problems). The army has to stop the Rockets from being fired !
So far, the IDF has tried many ideas to achieve that, has often shown ineptitude, and was not successful !
For their defense, the Generals indicate the circumstances are against them: these rockets are very easy to hide, the area is mostly densely populated (miss a 100 meters and you hit a house instead of open ground, and artillery is not that accurate), and significant part of the local population supports the firing. Obviously, the Israeli public does not care for the excuses, I doubt the American or French public would have given similar situations and demands the military to stop the rockets still. Thus, the army is setting out on lots of futile attempts, and casualties are added. Naturally, frustration leads to more deaths, and the technological gaps makes most of those Palestinian. Already, some voices call for a larger action, to stop the Rockets fire for a while and invoke the Palestinian Govt. to realize it should enforce its rule and stop the fire.
Once again, I am not sure I support this type of action. But, I am still looking for a better one. I remember our discussion in the WWIII thread and your failure to find a solution once the other side persists in acting “irrationally” or by the “soviet negotiation technique” as I have heard some call it, for longer then you anticipated.

Amir

Taliesin
11-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Amir

You are pretty much right Palestinians are generally '1951' style refugees, whilst all the others are '1967' style refugees. The difference being the general definition in the 1951 Convention "As a result of events occurring before 1st January 1951". .

The argument is based on the fact that Palestinians not having any nationality (as accepted by international Law) have a place where they can go and be safe from their persecution. Yes there are specific UN agencies for Palestinians.

The current working definition of Refugee is under the 1967 Protocol

Someone outside their country of origin with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particularly social group (don't ask) or political opinion for whom there is no adequate system of protection and have no internal flight alternative within their own country.

However the Palestinian situation is not totally unique - currently Kosovan/Kosovars would not get Refugee status given that there are UNMIK forces providing protection in lieu of the countries own forces and Kosovo is not actually a country in it's own right (yet)

It should also be pointed out that status under 1951 and 1967 are not mutually exclusive it is possible to be both a 1951 and 1967 style Refugee

BTW Civilians caught up in a Civil War situation have not been specifically regarded as Refugees (at least not in the UK) without being able to demonstrate 'differential impact'

The General operation of Refugee Law is that the 'host country' grants status giving equivalent (or almost equivalent rights) The UN has no authority to gain Refugees the local Nationality. The host states (when they can't avoid it) grant refugee status - some times for a limited period (in the UK it's 5 years) with the right to work, claim benefits etc.

Sorry this is such a basic 'nutshell reply' but if you want to learn more try the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (AKA The Refugee Handbook) - There are also issues of Stateless ness and obligations under Statelessness Conventions as well for Palestinians.

Getting back to the point of the thread

Your analogy could be applied to the IRA in the 1970s, as well as Israel's situation today. And whilst it may reflect the situation I don't accept that all action Israel takes is automatically justified as 'self-defense' . (It's not the only conflict I do not accept that'self-defense' is a justification for)

I don't claim either side are saints and believe the first step would be to only justify your actions as self-defence when it is lawful to do so. You don't have to look very far to see how horrific things can get when this basic principle is ignored.

As far as why Israel is such a focus - on the one hand it's a handy target for dictators to point to in order to shore up thier own power (No Iranian Nanes No Pack drill)

Taliesin
11-15-2006, 10:13 AM
Amir

You are pretty much right Palestinians are generally '1951' style refugees, whilst all the others are '1967' style refugees. The difference being the general definition in the 1951 Convention "As a result of events occurring before 1st January 1951". .

The argument is based on the fact that Palestinians not having any nationality (as accepted by international Law) have a place where they can go and be safe from their persecution. Yes there are specific UN agencies for Palestinians.

The current working definition of Refugee is under the 1967 Protocol

Someone outside their country of origin with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particularly social group (don't ask) or political opinion for whom there is no adequate system of protection and have no internal flight alternative within their own country.

However the Palestinian situation is not totally unique - currently Kosovan/Kosovars would not get Refugee status given that there are UNMIK forces providing protection in lieu of the countries own forces and Kosovo is not actually a country in it's own right (yet)

It should also be pointed out that status under 1951 and 1967 are not mutually exclusive it is possible to be both a 1951 and 1967 style Refugee

BTW Civilians caught up in a Civil War situation have not been specifically regarded as Refugees (at least not in the UK) without being able to demonstrate 'differential impact'

The General operation of Refugee Law is that the 'host country' grants status giving equivalent (or almost equivalent rights) The UN has no authority to gain Refugees the local Nationality. The host states (when they can't avoid it) grant refugee status - some times for a limited period (in the UK it's 5 years) with the right to work, claim benefits etc.

Sorry this is such a basic 'nutshell reply' but if you want to learn more try the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (AKA The Refugee Handbook) - There are also issues of Statelessness and obligations under Statelessness Conventions as well for Palestinians.

Getting back to the point of the thread

Your analogy could be applied to the IRA in the 1970s, as well as Israel's situation today. And whilst it may reflect the situation I don't accept that all action Israel takes is automatically justified as 'self-defense' . (It's not the only conflict I do not accept that 'self-defense' is a justification for)

I don't claim either side are saints and believe the first step would be to only justify your actions as self-defence when it is lawful to do so. You don't have to look very far to see how horrific things can get when this basic principle is ignored.

As far as why Israel is such a focus - on the one hand it's a handy target for dictators to point to in order to shore up thier own power (No Iranian Nanes No Pack drill)

Tom Fish
11-15-2006, 10:45 AM
Amir,
Thanks for sharing your insights. The purpose of this forum is to give us access to thoughtful discussions and exchanges of viewpoints from all around the world. I appreciate that you treat us with such regard and respect your ability to be so clear.
Best Regards
Tom

David Orange
11-15-2006, 04:40 PM
Totally invalid reasoning - but then you know that.

No, I don't think so.

Whilst you may find it convenient to lump the entire middle east together as "Arabs against Israel" you are aware that at the moment Iraq isn't against anyone except mostly other Iraqi's ,the last war they were aggressors in was about the Invasion of Kuwait. The last war Iran fought was against Iraq. Afghanistan isn't attacking Israel either. And while Egypt may have support attacks against Israel in 1948 it's president won a joint Nobel peace prize in the 1970s (so maybe things change)

Iraq? I made no major points about Iraq except that they did boot out a lot of Jews at the time of Israel's independence. First, not every Arab has to be actively ranting against Israel at every minute of the day for it to hold true that "the whole Arab world" is against Israel. But since you bring up Iraq, before he was brought down, Saddam Hussein was paying big money to suicide bombers in Palestine. And while current-day Iraqis have more than enough to deal with, I believe if you could get almost any one of them into a conversation on the subject, they would tell you that the existence of Israel is an insult to Islam and that Israel should be destroyed. Even the moderate ones would likely say, at best, that the Jews should be sent to New York or some place.

Anyway, the attitude of Iraqis was not my point. It's that that entire world comprises a huge are, all primarily dominated by Islam and that Israel is 1/10th of 1% of that land. Isn't it racist to expect that even that 1/10th of a percent should be "cleansed" and made Muslim again?

So we know that Israel aren't facing an enemy 999 times larger than themselves(even before we consider the disparity of weaponry in Israel's favour).

All I can give you on that statement is that not every Arab in that entire region is constantly working to destroy Israel, but I do think that the vast majority of them (over 99%) would be happy to see Israel erased and would give money (if not their own blood, or a son's blood) to see that happen. You've shown me nothing to indicate otherwise.

All of which leaves you arguing that there is a threat to Israeli's - which I accept - therefore anything they do whilst claiming to defend themselves must be justified (the end justifies the means - where have I heard that before)an argument I do not accept as valid.

Well, it's an argument I didn't make. I didn't advocate nuking them. I advocated a rock between the eyes.

But it seems that no one ever questions the methods and the actual deeds of the Palestinians or even who those Palestinians are. Yasser Arafat was from Egypt. Many of Hamas' weapons come straight from Egypt. Say what you want about the "leaders" of Egypt, the vast populace seems to be insulted by the existence of Israel and they supply the efforts to destroy it.

As far as the denial of nationality - you're right and the worst of the lot is Lebanon which denies nationality even to Palestinians who were born there.

Jordan, too. All the Arab nations would rather keep the handful of Palestinians as wretched camp dwellers than just resettle them and let history continue. They use those people like straw dogs. They blow themselves up and recruit the young people to blow themselves up. But let Israel kill one of them and it's a global humanitarian tragedy.

On the other hand does the USA automatically give nationality to every refugee in their country, I know Britain doesn't.

No, we don't, but there are dang few that we deny a place to live and a chance to work. They can come here and in a very few years become full citizens. The Arab world kicked out about as many Jews from their lands as the number of Arabs who left Palestine at the independence of Israel. It would be a fair swap for the Arab world to absorb those poor people and let the whole world go on with life.

But I don't expect that to happen.

David

Mike Sigman
11-15-2006, 06:24 PM
All I can give you on that statement is that not every Arab in that entire region is constantly working to destroy Israel, but I do think that the vast majority of them (over 99%) would be happy to see Israel erased and would give money (if not their own blood, or a son's blood) to see that happen. You've shown me nothing to indicate otherwise. I made this comment before, but I'll make it again. The whole world is getting fed up with Arabs and Islamists. They're primitive, can't be trusted, and they're still making potato chips when the rest of the world is making microchips. It would be easy to argue the Republican or Democrat position like one of those is at fault, but that's not what the problem with Iraq is: the problem with Iraq is that they're Arab primitive tribes that will never be able to go forward with civilization because they only have one view of life and civilization, which they can't let go of.

So let go of them. All of them. If they want to be civilized, let them show it. Make them work for it. We need to accept the idea that this socialist theory of everyone and every culture being equal has never worked out in real practice... if we hadn't started the wholesale belief in this, the West wouldn't be in the predicament it is. If everyone is equal... let them act/work equally.

Mike

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 12:41 AM
Amir

You are pretty much right Palestinians are generally '1951' style refugees, whilst all the others are '1967' style refugees. The difference being the general definition in the 1951 Convention "As a result of events occurring before 1st January 1951". ..


Thanks for the enlightenment. As I said, it was an article I read and I was not even sure it was true...

Amir

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 02:10 AM
I made this comment before, but I'll make it again. The whole world is getting fed up with Arabs and Islamists. They're primitive, can't be trusted, and they're still making potato chips when the rest of the world is making microchips. It would be easy to argue the Republican or Democrat position like one of those is at fault, but that's not what the problem with Iraq is: the problem with Iraq is that they're Arab primitive tribes that will never be able to go forward with civilization because they only have one view of life and civilization, which they can't let go of.

So let go of them. All of them. If they want to be civilized, let them show it. Make them work for it. We need to accept the idea that this socialist theory of everyone and every culture being equal has never worked out in real practice... if we hadn't started the wholesale belief in this, the West wouldn't be in the predicament it is. If everyone is equal... let them act/work equally.

Mike


Lets just disagree on everything you wrote in this post. And I hope, in a year or 5, you will read it and disagree with it too.

The language you used is racist. Similar ideas brought the death of too many of my people for me to accept hearing it :disgust:

I do think the multi-cultural concept of "all civilian groups are equal" is incorrect and raises significant problems once inter-civilizations communications are supposed to exist. Imagine a macho culture advocating white racism refusing to accept a black women ambassador or "only" discounting the communications with her.
But, this does not change my opinion of any of the statements you made in this post.

Amir

Taliesin
11-16-2006, 03:37 AM
To David Orange

You have gone from stating that Israel is threatened by enemies 999 times it's size to the assertion that

"not every Arab in that entire region is constantly working to destroy Israel, but I do think that the vast majority of them (over 99%) would be happy to see Israel erased and would give money".

If you want to go down the route that some parties are providing money and weapons as part of the alleged disparity then lets take into account the money and weapons Israel gets from the US as well as the Jewish diaspora throughout the world.

As far as - "would rather" goes - a lot of people throughout the world would rather GWB was not around - they didn't go and and shoot him - so that's an invalid point.

So, given your grudging concession that the disparity is nowhere like as extreme as you suggested and taking into account Israel receives external support.

Perhaps you can clarify what you think amounts to reasonable acts of self-defense for Israel

And more importantly what doesn't.


Mike

You may not think that all civilizations are equal

but do you believe that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights?

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 05:14 AM
Mike

You may not think that all civilizations are equal
but do you believe that all people are equal and have certain inalienable rights?No, I don't. I tend to think that people are animals, just like every other animal on earth. There's breeding drives, territoriality, etc., just like in all other animal groups. Some people have more talents than others. Some of them form viable "cultures" and some don't. Not all cultures, etc., are as viable as others; some cultures are dangerous to other cultures... just like in the rest of the animal world, some packs/herds/prides are better or worse than others for the survivability of other groups.

As a legal hypothesis, people are equal when they are born... after that, it's up to them to do what they are going to do and sustain themselves. To pretend that aggressive groups are not aggressive and that deep down underneath their concept of "good and evil" is the same as ours is foolish. If you can't recognize your enemies (as the Brits couldn't before WWII), then maybe you deserve to be obliterated and some other breeding line comes in to take your place? That's the way Mother Nature works, David. Trying to change Mother Nature with political correctness just isn't working, if you look at what's been happening to the world, despite all the diplomacy and aid (giving others your own group's resources). What's happening is that the wannabe "good guys" have emboldened some fairly bad people to knock them off, take over their territory, and breed the stronger line.... just like in Nature. The Brits survived WWII by a fluke, David, a pure fluke. Maybe it's time for them to be absorbed by some stronger culture? ;)

FWIW

Mike

Taliesin
11-16-2006, 06:05 AM
Mike

Do you think that once, just once, you could reply to a posting of mine WITHOUT brandishing your ignorance of history.

Britain declared war on Germany 3/09/1939

Quite why you claim " The Brits survived WWII by a fluke, David, a pure fluke." - will have to remjain mystery.

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 06:12 AM
Mike

Do you think that once, just once, you could reply to a posting of mine WITHOUT brandishing your ignorance of history.

Britain declared war on Germany 3/09/1939

Quite why you claim " The Brits survived WWII by a fluke, David, a pure fluke." - will have to remjain mystery.It's no mystery. Without intervention by the US, Britain would have fallen. If you knew as much about history as your superior comments infer, you'd know that.

And with citizens like you, very similar to the supercilious peace-at-any-price and "damn the US" types that controlled the press, etc., before WWII, Britain is on its way back to the chopping block. I'm sure you'll defend Britain admirably, though. Farsi or Arabic might be good languages to study, David, and you could switch to Shariah law after a brief stint in a Madrassah, no doubt. ;)

Mike Sigman

markwalsh
11-16-2006, 06:48 AM
It's no mystery. Without intervention by the US, Britain would have fallen.

Disagree - The Battle of Britain was fought and won in the skies before US intervention (which did win back mainland Europe with Russian aid - thanks guys). B of B could not have been won without brave pilots (including many Polish, free French and Canadian - but only two US), bad decisions by One-balled Jewhater, brilliant leadership by Churchill (who owns ANY world leader in speeches) and an excellent piece of engineering - The Spitfire/ Hurricane fighter which skirt boy Goring was very jealous of.

If you like I could give you my grandfathers phone number who fought in WWII and didn't meet an American until after D-Day. POINT 1939-41 - little US help (none military), but better late than never.

To give another example of why Britain is still great - after the 7/7 attacks I heard of NO instances of retaliation against Britain's large Muslim population.

God save all the queens, of all nations,
Mark

Luc X Saroufim
11-16-2006, 07:30 AM
I made this comment before, but I'll make it again. The whole world is getting fed up with Arabs and Islamists.
Mike

well Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Egypt, etc are modern and forward thinking. Not to mention that 5 major religious sects are represented in Lebanon, and have lived in peace for 16 years before this summer's conflict. now, even when Lebanon is divided, there is no fighting in the streets.

but i do tend to think Shia's live in the past. that's why they grow those beards: because 1500 years ago, they didn't shave. sure, i was upset at how Israel handled the war this summer, but calling for the death and destruction of a nation, or "wiping it off the map," i just don't know how to respond to something like this. how can you talk to those people? even if Ahmadinejad didn't mean it, it's a poor sign of leadership.

however i still don't think Olmert has earned the trust of his people, either.

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 08:24 AM
Disagree - The Battle of Britain was fought and won in the skies before US intervention (which did win back mainland Europe with Russian aid - thanks guys). B of B could not have been won without brave pilots (including many Polish, free French and Canadian - but only two US), What do you think would have happened had Germany stayed in mainland Europe very long????

And the CRAF contained American pilots, thanks. My uncle was one of them.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 08:30 AM
well Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Egypt, etc are modern and forward thinking. ??? What??? Are you insane? There are the trappings of a few modern things in those countries, but the dictatorships are still basically primitive and they encourage the news media to put out anti-Jew, anti-US propaganda. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, other than you consider some fairly primitive countries that vigorously control their populations and women as "forward thinking".
Not to mention that 5 major religious sects are represented in Lebanon, and have lived in peace for 16 years before this summer's conflict. now, even when Lebanon is divided, there is no fighting in the streets. Peace??? Are you serious??? In Lebanon? but i do tend to think Shia's live in the past. that's why they grow those beards: because 1500 years ago, they didn't shave. sure, i was upset at how Israel handled the war this summer, but calling for the death and destruction of a nation, or "wiping it off the map," i just don't know how to respond to something like this. how can you talk to those people? even if Ahmadinejad didn't mean it, it's a poor sign of leadership.

however i still don't think Olmert has earned the trust of his people, either.I love your constant obligatory "hate the Jews" stuff, Luc. You give lip-service only to a few Arab remarks, but you can never resist the shot at the Jews. This is what is so tiring about the "forward-thinking" Middle East. It's always the reversion to tribal loyalties. The world doesn't need it. If we got rid of the Arabs, there would be peace. Maybe if we put them all on reservations or something?? ;) They react too emotionally to leg-pulling.

Mike

Guilty Spark
11-16-2006, 08:32 AM
Hey Mark, I'm not much of a student of history but I'm gonna jump in with Mike on the idea that without the US's intervention, we ran a huge chance of loosing the war.
That said - I think a hell of a lot more lives would have been saved if the US would have joined the fight sooner, so to me the frquently used "You would have lost WW2 without us" mentality is bitter sweet.

Shamless plug, Canadians took vimy ridge :)

The whole Palistine vs Israel argument seems to me LIKE a ww1 battle. Lots of firing back and forth with very little ground gained.

David Orange
11-16-2006, 09:07 AM
To David Orange

You have gone from stating that Israel is threatened by enemies 999 times it's size to the assertion that

"not every Arab in that entire region is constantly working to destroy Israel, but I do think that the vast majority of them (over 99%) would be happy to see Israel erased and would give money".

Well, given that Israel is 1/1000th of that region, I don't think that changes my position at all. The Arab world is 999 times their size and the vast majority of that population supports the destruction of Israel. Where's the difference in what I said before? I stand by it.

If you want to go down the route that some parties are providing money and weapons as part of the alleged disparity then lets take into account the money and weapons Israel gets from the US as well as the Jewish diaspora throughout the world.

All the Jews in the world are a drop in the bucket compared to the Arab world. Second, while the US gives to Israel, it gives to all those surrounding Arab countries as well. We give billions to the Palestinians. And rather than building the roads and schools and such for which it was intended, it goes into guns and bombs and secret bank accounts. The "Palestinian" population is also completely permeable to Arabs throughout that region. They come from all over with support from their governments as well as international "charities" with the sole aim of killing Jews and destroying the nation of Israel.

As far as - "would rather" goes - a lot of people throughout the world would rather GWB was not around - they didn't go and and shoot him - so that's an invalid point.

No, David, I think you invalidated your own point. Not only the muslims of the Arab world, but muslims from all around the world consider the Israeli/Arab "problem" to be the central cause of world unrest and they support it not only with emotional empathy, but with finances, men and materiel. They bomb in other countries to turn those nations against Israel. So it's not like disliking Dub. They dislike Israel and work to destroy it.

So, given your grudging concession that the disparity is nowhere like as extreme as you suggested and taking into account Israel receives external support.

Perhaps you can clarify what you think amounts to reasonable acts of self-defense for Israel

Well, if anything I wrote before sounded to you like a grudging concession that the disparity is nowhere near as extreme as I suggested, I submit thay you simply misunderstood me. Israel is a tiny, tiny island in a vast sea and the owners of the vast sea begrudge that tiny island, on a racist basis, with blood in their eyes.

As for what is reasonable self-defense for Israel, I just don't know. When the entire world (effectively, based on UN resolutions) condemns Israel but turns a blind eye to the infiltrators and murderers from among the Palestinians, supported by the entire Arab ocean in the middle east, anything they do will look bad. They can't act with true decisiveness, but whenever they fail to act harshly, they're attacked again.

And as far as Iraq, Mike says that "the problem with Iraq is that they're Arab primitive tribes that will never be able to go forward with civilization because they only have one view of life and civilization, which they can't let go of."

That does largely describe the situation there, but I think the real problem with Iraq is that we invaded them. Say what you will about Saddam, but the place was pretty stable while he was running it and if there was violence and torture, it was less then than it is now; and it was on his hands, while now it is on OUR hands. THAT is the problem with Iraq as I see it.

Best wishes to all.

David

Luc X Saroufim
11-16-2006, 09:22 AM
??? What??? Are you insane? There are the trappings of a few modern things in those countries,

I'll send you pictures of Dubai when i go visit my brother there this winter; you obviously don't know what you're talking about. the place is a gold mine with a thriving economy, booming nightlife, and one of the most peaceful areas on Earth.

Peace??? Are you serious??? In Lebanon?


oh yeah. we signed the Taef Accord in 1989 and never looked back. don't blame Lebanon for what happened this summer. any country is weak after trying to rebuild from 15 years of war; Iran just took advantage of us.


I love your constant obligatory "hate the Jews" stuff, Luc.


you typed this right before you mentioned i was too emotional. can you make up your mind on anything? is blind Arab bashing all you're good for? why do you spread ignorance and hatred on a friendly forum?

Taliesin
11-16-2006, 09:53 AM
To Mark Walsh

We didn't just win the Battle of Britian without the Yanks we also captured and decoded the Enigma machine before they entered as well.

But don't expect Mike's opinions to be based on any sort of fact or evidence.

To David Orange

If you want to be credible make your mind up. You cannot both conceed that not every Arab in the Region is working to destroy Israel (particulalry since a lot of them are far too busy killing each other) and at the same time count them as the enemies threatening Israel - only Mike Sigman would accept that as a logical argument.

You also want to say its Israel against the Arabs and that invalidates the support - are you suggesting that Israel does not get significant military aid from - let's see - The USA

Buy the way - which side is it that has all the tanks and bombers and artillary in the conflict between Palestinainans and the IDF - clue - It ain't the Palestinians.

Lastly - Unless and Until you have a clear idea what you believe are the actions that are legitimate for self defence then you are hamstrung in arguing self defence at all.

To Luc

As far as Mike Sigman is concerned - just consider him a warning of what happens when you value your own opinions above facts, evidence, logic and reasoning.

David Orange
11-16-2006, 10:33 AM
To David Orange

If you want to be credible make your mind up. You cannot both conceed that not every Arab in the Region is working to destroy Israel (particulalry since a lot of them are far too busy killing each other) and at the same time count them as the enemies threatening Israel - only Mike Sigman would accept that as a logical argument.

David, I said that probably over 99% of the Arabs in the region (and probably 99.999% of the muslim Arabs) support the destruction of Israel. The ones that are busy trying to kill one another would probably stop that long enough to team up to kill and Israeli, given the opportunity. I don't think I've been inconsistent with that at all. My mind is quite made up on that. Of course, I'll grant you that the Arabs living within Israel would rather be there under Israeli rule than in any of their Arab neighbor countries.

You also want to say its Israel against the Arabs and that invalidates the support -

Sorry, but I don't understand that question.

are you suggesting that Israel does not get significant military aid from - let's see - The USA

You'd have to quote something I said along that line. I don't recall denying that.

Buy the way - which side is it that has all the tanks and bombers and artillary in the conflict between Palestinainans and the IDF - clue - It ain't the Palestinians.

Of course it's not the Palestinians. Their entire raison d'etre is to be miserable examples of downtrodden humanity. The Arab governments ensure that they remain so. But when things really get serious, it's not the Palestinians that send five armies against Israel at once. Do those nations have tanks and aircraft?

But why did Israel decimate Syria's entire Air Force in a single day several years back? How is it that they face far greater forces, with more firepower, and still beat them?

But to get back to the Palestinians, when they "fight," the come with nail bombs among civilians who have NO weapons of any kind. They come among mothers and infants in ice cream stores or they shoot rockets at old ladies going to the grocery store. Sorry, but you can't pump up any pity for them in this quarter.

Lastly - Unless and Until you have a clear idea what you believe are the actions that are legitimate for self defence then you are hamstrung in arguing self defence at all.

If the world were fair, all the "Palestinian refugees" would long since have been settled in the various countries that ejected the Jews upon Israel's declaration of Independence. The ordinary citizens would like nothing better, but the militants will not allow it. They keep every man, woman, child and infant as a de facto member of the military force against the "Zionist entity" and will never let them go until they are dead or the non-muslims have been killed or driven out of Israel.

And since that is the case, and the militants will shed a Palestinian baby's blood as freely as anyone else's if it serves their cause, I don't see anyway that the Israelies will ever be depicted as "fair" in anything they do. They are 1/10th of 1% of the land and the Arabs are fighting and wailing over 1/10th of that 1/10th of 1%.

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 11:02 AM
And since that is the case, and the militants will shed a Palestinian baby's blood as freely as anyone else's if it serves their cause, I don't see anyway that the Israelies will ever be depicted as "fair" in anything they do. They are 1/10th of 1% of the land and the Arabs are fighting and wailing over 1/10th of that 1/10th of 1%.But the Arabs have it explicitly written into their religion, which is also their civil law, to kill the Jews, Jews are monkies, kill the Christians, etc., etc. The problem is the Arabs.... this moral equivalency about how the Jews are "just as bad" is totally absurd. Let's disarm the Arabs.... they've been the same aggressors for centuries. If we can't disarm them or if they can't voluntarily straighten up their act, they need to be curtailed forcibly. As long as the Jew-haters continue to try to blame Israel for the Arabs' non-ceasing transgressions, we will have this silly confusion. We need to lay down the law. If the Arabs didn't have oil, they would have been brought into line a long time ago (well, they were brought into line, after WWI), but they're feeling their oats again. It's time to quit pretending they're "just like everybody else". They're not.

Mike

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 11:05 AM
The answer is 2. But just like all the previous issues you mentioned. There are no black and whites here either, reality is complex !

Yep, that's a given.

In fact, in some clear cases Israeli soldiers were even tried and sent to jail due to Palestinian deaths.

Ah, but what are the percentages of crimes, to convictions? You can trumpet a few clear convictions as proof, but is it indicative of justice working?

Personally, I don't know. But, the empirical sum of the crimes committed and their blatant regularity suggests no.

I am still waiting to hear of Hamas Govt. sending anyone to jail due to his killing Israelis.

Hmmm...you don't hear of too many PA soldiers opening up on IDF too often, now do you?

But, of course, Neal, you did not mean a few low level soldiers, but rather the Generals. In this regard, my answer is two folded:
a. I wish we had better Generals and soldiers, who would have been able to supply better security to Israel at a much lower price on both sides.

I wish you weren't so heavily armed, and so heavily invested in the military-industrial complex. :crazy:

b. As already discussed in the WWIII thread. Whom should we replace the leaders and Generals with?

Leaders and generals who understand the meaning of the Geneva Conventions...it's not a difficult concept, gifted only to a lucky few.

As far as I recall, you were equally against the actions of any other nation who reacted to a similar though much easier situation (No immediate threat to existence).

Oh, stop...Israel does NOT have an "immediate threat to its existance." :rolleyes:

Thus, given a very difficult situation to which non seems to have responded significantly better (not proposals but actual actions). Is it really fair to complain?

With respect, Amir: I think you should just cut to the chase...acknowledge that Israel can do no wrong, and we can proceed from there.

Instead of trying to convince me that Israel was justified in all of its actions (which requires a lot of mental gymnastics, it appears): why not just blandly state that Israel is blameless? That since it is besieged by enemies and has its very existence threatened (continuously, it seems, for 35 years): why not just cut out the middle-man of defending its worsening human rights record, by a simple shrug and a human-rights free-pass?

It would certainly save a lot of time... :dead:

But seriously, I echo the sentiment of a recent visitor to the US, from Israel: Yonaton Shapira, a former IDF officer:

Combatants For Peace ( http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/24/1439247&mode=thread&tid=25)

In Israel, it’s quite obvious that if you are finishing your high school studies, you join the military. I was growing up in a family in military bases. My father was a squadron commander in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. And my dream was to be a pilot. So, for me it was obvious that I will achieve this dream and I will also contribute to the security of my country.

It's us Jewish people and Israelis and former fighters, former combatants that took part in these wars, to lead these demonstrations who call for international pressure, who call for sanctions against the Israeli government who is doing these cruel things and brutal things in Lebanon. It will harm us Israelis, it will harm us Jewish people, if you will not wake up now, because it will not continue forever, and someone has to put an end to this.

I told him also that I believe that if Israel decided to occupy Palestinians, Israel is responsible for the life of the civilians, if Israel is responsible for the life, not just of the Israelis, but also the Palestinians. And then, in answering, he told me how he sees the different value of human beings, when Israeli citizens is on top, then Israeli soldiers, then Palestinian civilians and then Palestinian fighters.

And as a Jewish person who is also from a family that suffered lots and lost a lot in the Holocaust, and I was raised to be aware and not to follow any kind of racist leaders, I think that now it's very important to be mentioned that these leaders, this guy, this specific commander, is so dangerous for us, and Jewish people from all around the world must wake up and understand that in order to support Israel, in order to make sure that Israel will continue to exist, we must stop these guys. We must stop them, because now they continue to lead soldiers.

In history lessons, I didn't learn about the occupation. I learned those beautiful peace and bereavement songs. I learned about the beautiful values, about democracy, peace, justice, equality, freedom, and it took me many years to figure out and to know that at the same time that I was sitting in the classroom in school, learning all those beautiful values, my country, my military, was occupying and oppressing millions of Palestinians, millions of people that were living without all those beautiful values. We have so-called democracy for Jewish people or for Palestinians who are living within the 1967 border. But if you live in the Occupied Territories, it's completely apartheid.

Within the debate for occupation in Israel, you hear over and over again, how you’ve got to “protect yourself.” But, never do you hear a discussion about the morality of your actions. You never debate whether or not Occupation is the right thing to do, even tho you’ve been doing it some 35 years’ now, and it has yet to being about a lasting peace.

If I had an ailment and the Doctor kept telling me to do something that didn’t make the problem any better (for 35 years): I’d think about getting a second opinion…33 years’ ago. :crazy:

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 11:24 AM
Uh huh. OK, suppose you were my neighbor. And, one day I come by to tell you that because of security problems I'll be needing to build a huge wall through your property, bisecting your front yard. The resulting structure would mean that you'd have to walk out the back door and walk 6 blocks around it, just to get to your car.

Allow me to correct the analogy.

Apparently, your "correction" is missing a few key components.

Suppose you were my neighbor. Now, suppose your sons and daughters systematically invade my house to cause all sorts of inconveniences and risk my family's life. Suppose you do nothing to stop them, then yes, I would build a huge wall to keep them out, or move to a friendlier neighborhood (as suggested by Iran's president).

I agreed with the second part(I wouldn't want you to walk 6 blocks to your car), and I mentioned that I find the wall's outline disputable, but that doesn't change the fact that I need to keep your children off my family's throats.

Guess what you missed out? If the analogy holds true for the reality on the gound: you forgot to mention that

1. You'll be building that wall on MY property (worse! You'll have to knock over a good part of my house, making several of my family-members homeless;
2. You didn't get my permission, nor do you seem to care about what I think;
3. The wall is ILLEGAL.

The devil sure is in the details: and I believe you missed a whole scoop of demons in your analogy, dancing gleefully on your top of your hypothetical wall. :crazy:

They violate the ceasefire by rearming and regrouping, Israel violates it by taking pictures of them doing so, and Israel's the one getting threats by the French. Talk about bias!

Sorry, but "they," in this case, is not Lebanon: it's Hezbollah.

What is the Hizbollah if not an Iranian proxy trying to bring down the Lebanese government RIGHT NOW?

Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. Hezbollah is many things...one of them being a safety-net to pick up the pieces, after Israel's lovely attempts at bringing peace and stability to the MidEast, and Lebanon...ahem. :freaky:

During the war, Even Lebanese ministers blamed the Hizbollah for what has happened.
AND If you recall correctly, Hizbollah warriors invaded Israel to ambush and kidnap Israeli soldiers. Later they went on to rain a hellstorm of missiles that killed many, destroyed many and crippled the economy of Israel.

Hezbollah does not = Lebanon. Crimes done by Hezbollah are not rationales to bomb your neighbors, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Tally two for Iran.

Oh please. How many covert op's does Israel do in the region? Israel is hardly innocent.

I never claim that Israel is not an active party in the chaos around it. The current Israeli government is an expert at doing things the wrong way, but that doesn't mean it is the only source of problem in the region. It takes more than one trouble maker to start a gang war...

It takes at LEAST one troublemaker to consciously decide NOT to be a troublemaker any more, to end the violence, and transform into a peacemaker.

Israel doesn't seem to have the will to be that peacemaker

I think you would be surprised at the amount of basic principles you and I share.

Maybe: I think the only real divergence here is with racists on this thread who try to kick this up as some sort of anti-Arab, anti-Semite issue...which, of course: it isn't.

Tom Fish
11-16-2006, 12:10 PM
Not that making up lame analogies, cherry picking facts, or ignoring reality helps.
Tom

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 12:15 PM
Hezbollah does not = Lebanon. Crimes done by Hezbollah are not rationales to bomb your neighbors, no matter how you try to rationalize it.That line of reasoning only protected the Taliban for so long. The world is getting tired of the constant Arab BS and the way they never change, but just BS some more. If Siniora really wanted to clean up his country, he could have made a deal and gotten some help from an outside country. Maybe even the EU........ oh, scratch that.... they never do anything but talk.


Mike

David Orange
11-16-2006, 12:33 PM
Within the debate for occupation in Israel, you hear over and over again, how you've got to "protect yourself." But, never do you hear a discussion about the morality of your actions. You never debate whether or not Occupation is the right thing to do, even tho you've been doing it some 35 years' now, and it has yet to being about a lasting peace.

Neil, you posted that statement directly following the statement of an Israeli military veteran who was involved in protesting the Israeli government's actions. What are you talking about? The Jews do constantly question "the occupation". They just pulled out of Gaza a few months ago, and they're thanked by a tidal wave of weapons smuggling and a constant barrage of crude rockets fired at them.

Or, by "the Occupation," do you mean "Jews in Palestine"?

The Jews do constantly debate the rightness of occupying Palestinian areas, the wall, and so on and so forth. It's part of their life. But a Palestinian who questions Arab actions against Israel is called a collaborator and is assassinated, usually publically, in what can only be called a lynching.

You would probably blow your mind if you saw an Alabama redneck marching in a KKK uniform, but you don't seem to mind at all that Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades dress in that same uniform and march, giving the Nazi salute and swearing to kill all the Jews in Palestine.

What's that about?

The early Zionists bought land from the Arab owners. The owners didn't live on the land and the people who did live on that land were not the owners. They were mostly sharecroppers, who produced such meager profits for the owners that the owners preferred to sell the land to Jews. Not long after those days, the Ottoman Empire fell and Britain wound up in charge of the Palestinian region. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish Homeland in that region and in WWII, the Palestinian Jews supported England and fought in the British Army, while the Arabs supported Hitler. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, went to Berlin when he escaped the Brits, and started the Bosnian SS.

After the War, the UN declared Jewish and Arab zones, but the Arabs refused to accept any of it. The Jews accepted and declared an independent state in their zone. They were attacked by five armies from the surrounding Arab nations. Those attackers persuaded the Arabs (in large numbers) to move out of the Jewish area, which they did, but then the attacking Arabs somehow lost that war. And in those days, the Jewish state had almost NO military and very little weaponry. The Jews would not allow the Arabs who withdrew at that time to come back into Israel and they have been refugees ever since. Hezbollah tried this same tactic recently when they urged all Arabs to flee Haifa, so that Hizbo could come in and freely kill the Jews. The Arabs said, "NOT AGAIN" and refused to leave. That's what the refugees of 1948 should have done. But since they didn't, the Arab nations that told them to flee should take them in as full citizens.

But we know that will never happen.

It's not primarily a racist thing from the Jews. They are not fighting Arabs as such--just the radical islamists who will not accept Israel's mere existence in that sea of muslims. But for the Palestinians in their KKK uniforms, giving their Nazi salutes, it is a matter of racist genocide directed against the Jews. In their case, "If you're not with us, you're against us" means exactly what it says, and if you are against them, they will kill you, be you Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, straight, gay, male or female.

If I had an ailment and the Doctor kept telling me to do something that didn't make the problem any better (for 35 years): I'd think about getting a second opinion…33 years' ago. :crazy:

Yes, the Doctor, in this case, is the UN. It has been giving very bad advice and making false diagnoses. The Jews have given back territory, destroyed their own settlements, made peace accords, offered negotiations, but whatever they have done, they are attacked and attacked every time.

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 12:57 PM
Neil, you posted that statement directly following the statement of an Israeli military veteran who was involved in protesting the Israeli government's actions. What are you talking about?

This guy was the exception, rather than the rule. In fact, my contention that Israel does not actively debate the morality of his actions is not an original idea...I think it was Jonaton Shapira himself who made that claim.

The Jews do constantly question "the occupation". They just pulled out of Gaza a few months ago, and they're thanked by a tidal wave of weapons smuggling and a constant barrage of crude rockets fired at them.

Yeah, the poor, poor IDF...trying desperately to achieve peace (by bombing a family of 19). Please.

I'm sorry, but again: where I come from, if you do something wrong, unilaterally agree to stop doing it, and then go right back to doing it again: this is not called "progress," "remorse," or "discussing the greater issues."

This is more properly called, "damage control." The gesture of pullout is now seen as the empty gesture it was.

The Jews do constantly debate the rightness of occupying Palestinian areas, the wall, and so on and so forth. It's part of their life.

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. There simply IS no societal debate within Israel going on, debating the morality of Occupation with any substance.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

But a Palestinian who questions Arab actions against Israel is called a collaborator and is assassinated, usually publically, in what can only be called a lynching.

Source? And again, you cannot prove that this is anything resembling a regular occurrance. CERTAINLY not one approved by the PA.

You would probably blow your mind if you saw an Alabama redneck marching in a KKK uniform, but you don't seem to mind at all that Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades dress in that same uniform and march, giving the Nazi salute and swearing to kill all the Jews in Palestine.

You should be very careful in ascribing feelings and emotions to someone you have never even met. You don't know me: and I'd appreciate it if you don't pretend that you do.

What's that about?

I dunno: YOU brought it up, now how about a little source, so that I know what you're talking about! :freaky:

The early Zionists bought land from the Arab owners. The owners didn't live on the land and the people who did live on that land were not the owners. They were mostly sharecroppers, who produced such meager profits for the owners that the owners preferred to sell the land to Jews. Not long after those days, the Ottoman Empire fell and Britain wound up in charge of the Palestinian region. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish Homeland in that region and in WWII, the Palestinian Jews supported England and fought in the British Army, while the Arabs supported Hitler. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, went to Berlin when he escaped the Brits, and started the Bosnian SS.

After the War, the UN declared Jewish and Arab zones, but the Arabs refused to accept any of it. The Jews accepted and declared an independent state in their zone. They were attacked by five armies from the surrounding Arab nations. Those attackers persuaded the Arabs (in large numbers) to move out of the Jewish area, which they did, but then the attacking Arabs somehow lost that war. And in those days, the Jewish state had almost NO military and very little weaponry. The Jews would not allow the Arabs who withdrew at that time to come back into Israel and they have been refugees ever since. Hezbollah tried this same tactic recently when they urged all Arabs to flee Haifa, so that Hizbo could come in and freely kill the Jews. The Arabs said, "NOT AGAIN" and refused to leave. That's what the refugees of 1948 should have done. But since they didn't, the Arab nations that told them to flee should take them in as full citizens.

But we know that will never happen.

Ah, history. I could easily come up with my own historical rationale of where and why the Israeli's are wrong, etc, ad nauseum. We can go back and forth all day, arguing over the Balfour Declaration, etc.

But funny, you and I will both leave out the salient details of the other side, in our argument.

So, rather than go down the subjective path of history (a history, I notice: that YOU seem to leave off, at 1965...hmm): I'll just mention my point of departure.

It was in '02, when the IDF was shelling Jenin. I talked to someone about 4 kids recently getting killed by IDF, and this fellow started going on about Israel's need to defend itself. I just looked at him like he was crazy. These are children, I remarked. They're not guilty of ANYTHING, but they paid the price with their lives.

Now, go on and do your little "the Arab leaders are responsible," dance. But, the bullets that killed those kids are made in the USA, hot by Israeli soldiers.

Somehow, your claims that Israel is somehow vindicated because they're doing the evil things they do is self-defence, comes off as nothing more or less than an apology for murdering kids.

It's not primarily a racist thing from the Jews. They are not fighting Arabs as such--just the radical islamists who will not accept Israel's mere existence in that sea of muslims.

Shooting, bulldozing, and detaining anything and anyone who stands in their way (or even, randomly standing around, minding their own business). :dead:

But for the Palestinians in their KKK uniforms, giving their Nazi salutes, it is a matter of racist genocide directed against the Jews.

You do go on about these KKK uniforms. Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Have you even talked to a Palestinian who is, or was, a soldier?

FYI, I've talked to both Palestinian's, AND Israeli's, formerly in active service. And I'm here to tell you that the Israeli's would be the first to agree that much of Israeli official policy is racist, from their perspective.

In their case, "If you're not with us, you're against us" means exactly what it says, and if you are against them, they will kill you, be you Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, straight, gay, male or female.

For some extremists, this is true. This is true of ALL extremism, so I don't see the point.

But, this is certainly not true of all Palestinian's in a uniform. You misrepresent.

Yes, the Doctor, in this case, is the UN.

Funny, but I thought the UN was the one decrying the Occupation. I believe you have your metaphors mixed up. :hypno:

It has been giving very bad advice and making false diagnoses. The Jews have given back territory, destroyed their own settlements, made peace accords, offered negotiations, but whatever they have done, they are attacked and attacked every time.

Poor Israel! Btw hitching kids to jeeps, shooting at civilians, or simply blockading off the Gaza strip: it all gets drowned out in a sea of misunderstanding. They just wanna be LOVED, after all... :freaky: :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 01:02 PM
Regardless of your trivializations of other points of view, Mr. Mick, you have adequately demonstrated that when defending your own point of view, you think it is necessary to go to the extremes. Tom

Not that making up lame analogies, cherry picking facts, or ignoring reality helps.
Tom

Gosh, Mr. Fish: I guess that the lesson I'm supposed to learn here is that when I cannot defend my own point of view, I should go back to trivializing the views of those with whom I disagree (as you seem so comfortable, doing. Too bad for you). :sorry:

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll pass. Next!

po_courcelles
11-16-2006, 01:40 PM
But the Arabs have it explicitly written into their religion, which is also their civil law, to kill the Jews, Jews are monkies, kill the Christians, etc., etc. The problem is the Arabs.... this moral equivalency about how the Jews are "just as bad" is totally absurd. Let's disarm the Arabs.... they've been the same aggressors for centuries. If we can't disarm them or if they can't voluntarily straighten up their act, they need to be curtailed forcibly. As long as the Jew-haters continue to try to blame Israel for the Arabs' non-ceasing transgressions, we will have this silly confusion. We need to lay down the law. If the Arabs didn't have oil, they would have been brought into line a long time ago (well, they were brought into line, after WWI), but they're feeling their oats again. It's time to quit pretending they're "just like everybody else". They're not.

Mike
May i see a quote of that "explicit written" passage of the Coran?

Let's disarm the Arabs.... they've been the same aggressors for centuries.
Oh yeah...the Christian Crusades were fictious I guess...

this moral equivalency about how the Jews are "just as bad" is totally absurd.
The exact opposite is also absurd...

One phrase to express my thoughts on this:

Live and let live...

We should let these people adress their conflicts themselves and mind our own business. It will come to an end when THEY will have decided to...we can't force them to be our way when we want it....You can't force an alcooholic to stop drinking if he doesn't want to. Get my point?

My only fear is that they BOTH we will fight 'till death to the last one and in 100 years people will have the exact same discussion about it...

So i'd say...yeah... "give peace some chance"... :ai:

Tom Fish
11-16-2006, 01:43 PM
"Not that making up lame analogies, cherry picking facts, or ignoring reality helps."
This comment was made seriously and with all due respect. If I had meant it to be condescending in any way, I would have used some emoticons.
Tom

Luc X Saroufim
11-16-2006, 02:09 PM
The world is getting tired of the constant Arab BS and the way they never change

even an ounce of help from other countries, especially Israel, would have been enough for Lebanon to reign supreme over its land.



If Siniora really wanted to clean up his country, he could have made a deal and gotten some help from an outside country.

please tell me, Mike, who has ever helped Lebanon?

Palestinians - brought the conflict against Israel on Lebanese turf, contributed to civil war, still there.

Hezbollah - brought the conflict against Israel on Lebanese turf, contributing to possible civil war, responsible for most Israeli attacks on Lebanon, still there.

Syria - hell bent on taking over Lebanon, corrupting its government, hampering Hariri tribunal, contributed to civil war, still there.

Israel - maybe they'll help. they should.

Iran - financial and political backing of Lezzbollah

US - has pretended to care for over 30 years, never does anything.



I keep hearing about how Palestinians are victims, even though they have the sympathy of basically every Arab nation, the EU, and China. i keep hearing how Israeli's are THE victim in the Middle East, even with the financiail, political, and military backing of the world's only superpower.

who, Mike, has sympathy for Lebanon? who will Siniora ask for help? i'm all ears, because Lebanon has been nothing but a punching bag for its neighbors.

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 02:13 PM
May i see a quote of that "explicit written" passage of the Coran? Good heavens, there are tons of "hate the other guy" quotes in the Quran:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

In three instances (Surahs 2, 5 and 7), the Koran tells of Muhammad turning people into monkeys and/or pigs: "Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and his Wrath, and those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swine." (Surah 5:60) Another section of the Koran compares the Jews to donkeys.

Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2


Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193

Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

Christians will be burned in the Fire. 5:72

Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom. 5:73

Muslims that make friends with disbelievers will face a doom prepared for them by Allah. 5:80 Oh yeah...the Christian Crusades were fictious I guess... Hmmmmmm.... I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the Crusades were long ago... are you trying to say the Crusades justifies what the Muslims are doing today, by any chance???? I'm sure you're aware that the Crusades started after the Muslims began restricting travel to the so-called "Holy Land". I.e., the Crusades came *after* actions by the Arabs.One phrase to express my thoughts on this: Live and let live... Except, that's not what the Arabs are doing. Why not offer your family, etc., in exchange to the Arabs so that they won't kill or attack some more Jews? It would be a good gesture. Except, when it gets personal like that, it becomes outrageous, doesn't it? Yet, you're willing to let the Arabs continue attacking the Jews?

If the Arabs are disarmed, there will be peace. If the Jews are disarmed, they will be annihilated.

Mike

Mike Sigman
11-16-2006, 02:17 PM
even an ounce of help from other countries, especially Israel, would have been enough for Lebanon to reign supreme over its land. Oh, stop. Israel tried and Lebanese resisted them. Lebanon is not just the people you pick and choose to represent it, Luc. It's the people who live there.

And the US? Remember how many Marines died there in the big bombing? We never do anything? Please. Whatever we do, someone complains and our liberals, like Neil Mick, who hate the US, just blather endlessly (while not being willing to move to one of these countries that they love more than the US. Funny, eh? ;)

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
11-16-2006, 02:35 PM
Oh, stop. Israel tried and Lebanese resisted them. Lebanon is not just the people you pick and choose to represent it, Luc. It's the people who live there.

i actually take pride that throughout the 70's and 80's, all the way to the end of the civil war in 1990, Lebanon never had extremist views towards Israel. the government, whether Syrian or Lebanese, never called for Israel's destruction, most people were never taught to hate Israel (obviously the ones in the South would hold a certain gripe), and they always recognized Israel. this is why i don't understand Olmert's lack of sympathy towards the Lebanese government. yes, they are weak, but that's all they're guilty of.

you know as well as i do, Mike, that the Lebanese government wants Hezzbollah out more than anyone else. more than Israel.


And the US? Remember how many Marines died there in the big bombing? We never do anything? Please. Whatever we do, someone complains and our liberals, like Neil Mick, who hate the US, just blather endlessly (while not being willing to move to one of these countries that they love more than the US. Funny, eh? ;)

Mike

yes, i was in Lebanon when the Hezzbolah suicide bomber killed 250 marines. i don't see what that has to do with helping Lebanon rid themselves of Syrian and Iranian influence.

most Arabs and Europeans think Palestinians deserve their own land and a place to live. most Jews and Americans wish the same thing upon Israel. I personally agree with both.

doesn't Lebanon deserve the same thing? Lebanon is getting no help from the press, not even the liberals. no help from the US, EU, Arabs, or Israel. nobody cares if it gets destroyed, and most people think Lebanon is better off if it goes back in Syria's hands. even when Israel's powerful army and US backing couldn't disarm Hezzbolah, Lebanon's death and destruction this summer was blamed on none other than the Lebanese government, who was more interested in rebuilding than starting a civil war that they could never win anyway.

as if it couldn't get any worse for Lebanon, i'm hearing that Britain and US are trying to ally with Syria to help them maintain stability in Iraq.

if that happens, you can kiss Siniora's pro-west, democratic government goodbye, because once again, the West won't do a thing to prevent Syria from waltzing right in.

then you'll have Shia's dominating Lebanese government and military; you can see where this is leading, Mike...

Israel can't have its cake and eat it too. you can't weaken Siniora's government because it doesn't pose a threat to Israel. if supporting Siniora weakens Olmert, let me ask you: how can Olmert's popularity get any lower, and what would happen to Israel if Hezbollah and Syria capture power?

i mean i would think this is common sense but i continue to be shocked as Syria is slowly, but surely, toppling Siniora and no one is doing anything about it. it's not even in the press.

David Orange
11-16-2006, 02:41 PM
This guy was the exception, rather than the rule. In fact, my contention that Israel does not actively debate the morality of his actions is not an original idea...I think it was Jonaton Shapira himself who made that claim.

Regardless, it's clearly an invalid claim. They have protest marches with hundreds of people at a time in Israel. It's not an inconsequential segment of their society. A similar movement within the Palestinian camps would be literally slaughtered.

The gesture of pullout is now seen as the empty gesture it was.

Are they still there? No. They did pull out and the Palestinians killed a woman yesterday in Sderot who was walking to buy groceries. Whatever the Jews give up is mere empty gesture and whatever murders the Palestinians commit, whatever thoats they cut are sincere cries for international aid--never simple racist blood lust. Face it, Neil: you are an apologist (and an irrational one at that) for racist bloodletting.

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. There simply IS no societal debate within Israel going on, debating the morality of Occupation with any substance.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

Well you've proven repeatedly that whatever proof anyone offers you will simply deny. We're talking Israel, Neil, not Egypt: get out of Denial.



Source? And again, you cannot prove that this is anything resembling a regular occurrance. CERTAINLY not one approved by the PA.

There are photos of these things all over the internet, Neil. I haven't seen any lately, but they drag the poor SOBs through the streets, hang them up by one leg, hang them by the neck, shoot them with machine guns, disembowel them. This is what it is to speak out against the Arab genocide against Israel. They will kill their own as readily as they will kill the Jews.

You should be very careful in ascribing feelings and emotions to someone you have never even met. You don't know me: and I'd appreciate it if you don't pretend that you do.

From all your statements, I'd have to conclude (and I believe anyone else reading your statements would also believe) that:

"You would probably blow your mind if you saw an Alabama redneck marching in a KKK uniform,"

Or are you saying you don't mind seeing the KKK march?

And from all your statements, "you don't seem to mind at all that Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades dress in that same uniform and march, giving the Nazi salute and swearing to kill all the Jews in Palestine." You constantly defend them, trivialize all that they do against Israel and Jews while vastly magnifying what the Israelis do in response.

I wrote "What's that about?" and you replied "I dunno: YOU brought it up, now how about a little source, so that I know what you're talking about! :freaky: "

So I will clarify: why do you tolerate a group that marches in KKK regalia, uses the Nazi salute and vows to racially cleanse a tiny minority from its homeland? What's THAT about?

Ah, history. I could easily come up with my own historical rationale of where and why the Israeli's are wrong, etc, ad nauseum.

Clearly. You've shown a real talent for inventing all manner of rationale, independent of all reality.

So, rather than go down the subjective path of history (a history, I notice: that YOU seem to leave off, at 1965...hmm):

I don't see any reason to recap it further than that. That's about when the Arabs first began calling themselves palestinians and pretending that they ever had a nationality connected to that land. That's when the Egyptian, Yasser Arafat, made himself the spokesperson for that never-existed nation. It set the stage for all that has happened since.

[qoute=Neil Mick]I'll just mention my point of departure.

It was in '02, when the IDF was shelling Jenin. I talked to someone about 4 kids recently getting killed by IDF, and this fellow started going on about Israel's need to defend itself. I just looked at him like he was crazy. These are children, I remarked. They're not guilty of ANYTHING, but they paid the price with their lives.

Ah. You looked at him like he was crazy. That is a substantial turning point in history, indeed. But why didn't you start in 2000, when Palestinians were bombing buses full of unarmed Israeli children? Do you know that US money was diverted from "aid" payments to make those murder weapons?

Now, go on and do your little "the Arab leaders are responsible," dance.

No need. Jenin was a well-established center for terrorists. They had taken over the city and were operating regularly from there. And the whole "massacre of Jenin" has been proven to be a farce. Only a fraction of the claimed casualties occurred and they were overwhelmingly armed fighters.

Somehow, your claims that Israel is somehow vindicated because they're doing the evil things they do is self-defence, comes off as nothing more or less than an apology for murdering kids.

Look, the Palestinians have proven that they will kill their own children, who will blow up themselves, their wives and children, and will kill Israelis and any Palestinians who are not against the Israelis. You are a bigger apologist for murder.

You do go on about these KKK uniforms. Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Have you even talked to a Palestinian who is, or was, a soldier?

Since they've never had a nation, they can hardly be soldiers, can they? But they are often active members of "militias" which are basically Klan-style organizations. Have you never seen the funerals where hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians march in their dead-on KKK uniforms, all white, complete with the pointy hoods and with green sashes, carrying rifles and strapped with suicide belts (and carrying children strapped with suicide belts)? Are you saying you've never seen the pictures and videos of those rallies, complete with "dead" guys who jump off the stretcher at the end of the parade?

FYI, I've talked to both Palestinian's, AND Israeli's, formerly in active service. And I'm here to tell you that the Israeli's would be the first to agree that much of Israeli official policy is racist, from their perspective.

Well, you just contradicted yourself. You said earlier that there is NO substantial debate about those policies within Israel, even though you keep referring to Israelis who openly debate it. But how many Palestinians have you met who will admit the pure racist basis of their hatred of the Jews--that their claim to Palestine is purely racial and religious minority cleansing?

Funny, but I thought the UN was the one decrying the Occupation. I believe you have your metaphors mixed up. :hypno:

No, you have your metaphors backward. The "doctor" has been telling Israel to give up land. They give it up and the get attacked. Everytime they follow the UN's demands, the Palestinians grow more savage. More UN Kool Aid, they don't need.

hitching kids to jeeps, shooting at civilians, or simply blockading off the Gaza strip: it all gets drowned out in a sea of misunderstanding. They just wanna be LOVED, after all... :freaky: :rolleyes:

I don't think they're interested in your kind of love. They just don't want to be murdered in their cafes and on their buses and they don't want idiots who think they're promoting humanity and peace to be supporting the suicide bombers.

Steve Mullen
11-16-2006, 04:30 PM
Mike wrote:

If you can't recognize your enemies (as the Brits couldn't before WWII), then maybe you deserve to be obliterated and some other breeding line comes in to take your place?

Two words PEARL HARBOR!!! mean anything to you. probably not as all Americans have a habbit of forgetting the bit where they get their butts handed to them in their own back yard. jesus you had your own guys telling you to get the ships out of there, but Americans in their no one can beat us pig ignorant mentality just left them there to be bombed to hell. so maybe the americans deserved to be 'obliterated and have some other breading line' come in. hwell it would have stopped george bush ever getting any realy power.

Seriously Mike you really should look at what you write. discussion aside you are going to seriously hurt some people who will take great offence.

N.B the reference to all americans was purely aimed at mikes insistance on using phrases like europeans as though everyone in europe thinks the same. personally i like americans, you gave us spam

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 05:09 PM
Ah, but what are the percentages of crimes, to convictions? You can trumpet a few clear convictions as proof, but is it indicative of justice working?
Personally, I don't know. But, the empirical sum of the crimes committed and their blatant regularity suggests no.

Did you not just agree the situation is complex. How can you expect multiple clear convictions in a complex situation. No justice system works this way, not even for civilians.

Hmmm...you don't hear of too many PA soldiers opening up on IDF too often, now do you?
It does happen, though much less now. But the reason is quite not the one you imply:
After the last 3-4 years, the PA soldiers realized the IDF will fire upon them if they carry arms near Israeli soldiers. This was not always the case, once their were common patrols and headquarters, but after in some cases a PA soldier from the "common force" opened fire on his Israeli "partners". And multiple more cases of similar nature. This is the present state.

I wish you weren't so heavily armed, and so heavily invested in the military-industrial complex.
And I wish we did not need to be that heavily armed, and could have turned significant parts of the budget and attention to other very important issues such as education, health, road safety and environment.

Leaders and generals who understand the meaning of the Geneva Conventions...it's not a difficult concept, gifted only to a lucky few.
Easy to understand, but apparently as I have pointed previously, it is almost impossible to follow in realistic conditions. After all, you have agreed with me about the numerous violations of many other countries.


Oh, stop...Israel does NOT have an "immediate threat to its existence."
I disagree. And I would like a guarantee that if Israel is attacked by any significant force, you will kill yourself and all your family in a demonstration for us. If may seem gross to you, nut myself, I still have doubts if I should not move out to safe keep my family.
I do not trust anyone in the world to come to Israeli rescue. Not even after the gallant "desert storm" operation to save Kuwait. Had it been Israel, we would have been slaughtered just like the Black natives are in Sudan.
If you truly do not realize this point, and learn to accept it as a part of a sad reality. Any discussion we could have would remain moot.


I think you should just cut to the chase...acknowledge that Israel can do no wrong, and we can proceed from there.

"Israel has done\can do no wrong", Where did you bring this absurd idea from?
Israel has done lots of wrongs, some as mistakes, others in negligence, much more through stupidity, and finally, there were even some cases of outright pseudo-criminal behavior.
Israel is not the only clean state in a dirty world. Israel behavior is just marginally better then most other countries faced with vital interests. And the media, world opinion and relative size are among the prime reason for that narrow margin being on the positive side, rather then deteriorating far to the other side. This, together with the Jewish memories of WWII which are still very fresh and make significant portions of the population stand strongly against any racist.

Instead of trying to convince me that Israel was justified in all of its actions (which requires a lot of mental gymnastics, it appears): why not just blandly state that Israel is blameless? That since it is besieged by enemies and has its very existence threatened (continuously, it seems, for 35 years): why not just cut out the middle-man of defending its worsening human rights record, by a simple shrug and a human-rights free-pass? It would certainly save a lot of time... :dead:
Because I disagree with both statements you made:
- Israel was not justified in all its actions.
Only in most actions and there are multiple cases, in which the Israeli response can be understood but should have been better.
- As far as the next, This is my worst nightmare, you wish to give free rein to the Crazy Jewish Settlers of us all (many of this group actually came from the US - blame yourselves for their twisted education and belief system). Even most of the settlers reject them.

But seriously, I echo the sentiment of a recent visitor to the US, from Israel: Yonaton Shapira, a former IDF officer:

I agree with many of the things he says, but I also think he disregards many facts of this region.

Within the debate for occupation in Israel, you hear over and over again, how you've got to "protect yourself." But, never do you hear a discussion about the morality of your actions. You never debate whether or not Occupation is the right thing to do, even tho you've been doing it some 35 years' now, and it has yet to being about a lasting peace.
Just proves how wrong you are. The internal debates here do consider morality, as well as many other issues.
But, most people in the Israeli left also acknowledge the real threat Israel is facing from the Arab\Islamic world. And they too accept a nation must survive first and be moral second. However, unlike your previous Cate-Blanch, many (not all) Israelis do not consider it this way, and still expect our nation to be moral and aspire for better.



If I had an ailment and the Doctor kept telling me to do something that didn't make the problem any better (for 35 years): I'd think about getting a second opinion…33 years' ago. :crazy:
Are you becoming a Liberman supporter now Neil?
This is his argument: "Israel tried to occupy the Palestinian people and while having almost 20 peaceful years it failed and got the first intifada. After suppressing it, Israel then tried to negotiate with the Palestinian and failed again, with deadly consequences. Recently Israel tried to get out of territories (Gaza) and failed again, getting rockets in return. Therefore Israel should try something else - deporting and stronger hand ..."
These are his arguments, since when are you supporting him?
Me, I prefer trying something more similar to the previous solutions.

Amir

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 05:43 PM
Yeah, the poor, poor IDF...trying desperately to achieve peace (by bombing a family of 19). Please.

Your sarcasm surely helps everyone agree with you Neal. Perhaps before you demand anything of others, you should stop using it?
It does not even show respect for the dead Palestinians!

I'm sorry, but again: where I come from, if you do something wrong, unilaterally agree to stop doing it, and then go right back to doing it again: this is not called "progress," "remorse," or "discussing the greater issues."

Sure, withdrawing from the Gaza strip and tearing apart several dozens of settlement is just a minor act, displacing hundreds of families many of which have not yet found their home. This was not a minor act, the Palestinians should have realized the support this act received implied a real wish for peace among most Israelis and a willingness to negotiate.


I
I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. There simply IS no societal debate within Israel going on, debating the morality of Occupation with any substance.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

Sure, just open Haaretz and look at the articles.
After all, You won't believe me and Roy writing you it happens very often, with friends or others (even after practice at times), discussing news or just over lunch. The morality issue also often arises.

I
Source? And again, you cannot prove that this is anything resembling a regular occurrance. CERTAINLY not one approved by the PA.

I have not heard of any such act in the last couple of years. Seems the message is already deeply ingrained. There were several cases that got to the press (at least here) at the start of Arafat rule, by now, it is not realy new, just a fact of life.
Do look at the numbers of Palestinians advocating a compromise based solution and not a "Just solution" which once you inquire too often translates to - no more Jews here (seen more then one interview with a common person on the street).


FYI, I've talked to both Palestinian's, AND Israeli's, formerly in active service. And I'm here to tell you that the Israeli's would be the first to agree that much of Israeli official policy is racist, from their perspective.
And you do not find it strange that the Palestinians rarely preset second thoughts. Even though they insist on having something that was never there in history - A Palestinian state, and demand it to be without any Jews in it, although Jews continuously lived in these very places since before the birth of Christ, and until 1948? (Those who survived the 1929 and later slaughters were expelled or killed by the Jordan's).
Who is more racist? the one who has second thoughts about the morality of his actions and those not fully agree with his countries actions, and while living in the only state with his nationality in majority, accepts the other nationals in his country. Or the one who insists on having only a single nationality state?


Funny, but I thought the UN was the one decrying the Occupation. I believe you have your metaphors mixed up. :hypno:
Or perhaps, it is you who is reading the situation backwards and mixes his facts?



Amir

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 05:49 PM
The early Zionists bought land from the Arab owners. The owners didn't live on the land and the people who did live on that land were not the owners. They were mostly sharecroppers, who produced such meager profits for the owners that the owners preferred to sell the land to Jews. Not long after those days, the Ottoman Empire fell and Britain wound up in charge of the Palestinian region. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish Homeland in that region and in WWII, the Palestinian Jews supported England and fought in the British Army, while the Arabs supported Hitler. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, went to Berlin when he escaped the Brits, and started the Bosnian SS.

After the War, the UN declared Jewish and Arab zones, but the Arabs refused to accept any of it. The Jews accepted and declared an independent state in their zone. They were attacked by five armies from the surrounding Arab nations. Those attackers persuaded the Arabs (in large numbers) to move out of the Jewish area, which they did, but then the attacking Arabs somehow lost that war. And in those days, the Jewish state had almost NO military and very little weaponry. The Jews would not allow the Arabs who withdrew at that time to come back into Israel and they have been refugees ever since. Hezbollah tried this same tactic recently when they urged all Arabs to flee Haifa, so that Hizbo could come in and freely kill the Jews. The Arabs said, "NOT AGAIN" and refused to leave. That's what the refugees of 1948 should have done. But since they didn't, the Arab nations that told them to flee should take them in as full citizens.

At least some point in this history are very partial. One example:

Arabs fled the region in 1948 not only because of fellow states, most run because they could leave the war-zone (wouldn't you leave had you a brother\cousin living elsewhere). Some were activly forced or frightened to live by Israeli army or (more often Ezel & Lehi Jewish brigands). The exact numbers and reasoning will remain obscure, since today all would be likely to give you the answer that benefits their national aspirations.

Another example is the brits who, alnogside the Balfur decleration, gave the Arabs promises regarding the same peace of land...

Amir

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 05:56 PM
even an ounce of help from other countries, especially Israel, would have been enough for Lebanon to reign supreme over its land.


Luc

Sinc eI wish for peace between our countries, this is the last thing I would suggest.
Israeli current Govt. is so inadequate, it is better no to be helped by it (note the populations being fired upon are assisted by millioner philantropy instead of the Govt.. which should have taken care of them).
Helping would create paternalisem and exploitation. Niether of these is a true source for peace.

I support cooperation, but it must be on equal terms, and not with Israel as the strong side.

Amir

Amir Krause
11-16-2006, 06:05 PM
David

For a change, I found I could truelly fully agree with your post #91.

Amir

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 08:05 PM
Regardless, it's clearly an invalid claim. They have protest marches with hundreds of people at a time in Israel. It's not an inconsequential segment of their society. A similar movement within the Palestinian camps would be literally slaughtered.

Regardless, you're talking out of your hat. I challenged you to come up with some proof to your claim: and all you have porduced so far is a lot of hot air (topped lightly with a little personal invective, if post #91 is a precurser of things to come).

Are they still there? No. They did pull out and the Palestinians killed a woman yesterday in Sderot who was walking to buy groceries. Whatever the Jews give up is mere empty gesture and whatever murders the Palestinians commit, whatever thoats they cut are sincere cries for international aid--never simple racist blood lust.

Are we talking about Gaza, or Lebanon? I was under the impression that it was Gaza.

But, I doubt that you care much at this point, being so eager to level slanders such as

Face it, Neil: you are an apologist (and an irrational one at that) for racist bloodletting.

No, YOU face it: David, you have not a sliver of proof to back your claim; and so you do like most do, unfortunately: you go for the personal attack.

But, since you missed it (being so busy with the personal invectives): I'll repeat it--

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. There simply IS no societal debate within Israel going on, debating the morality of Occupation with any substance.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

Sorry, but a few protest marches in Israel does not equate to an active debate within society.

In case your highly selective memory has forgotten: WE had protest marches in March of 2003. Now I suppose (using tortured logic) you'd call that "debating," too. Yet, the discussion of the actual "right-ness" of what we're doing, has been largely absent, until quite recently, within mainstream society. Our mainstream media presented a host of militarty experts on TV telling us what a "great war" this will be. Our politicians have been hesitant, till recently, to touch the subject with a 10' pole.

NOW, at last that the Dem's are in power, there is some opening up of the morality of this illegal war.

But, you find NONE of that in Israel. Sure, there are some peace marches here and there, but they are HARDLY indicative of a healthy debate...the peace movement is in the minority of Israeli society.

But you go on and call me an apologist, label me irrational...far, far easier than actually considering my point, isn't it?

Well you've proven repeatedly that whatever proof anyone offers you will simply deny. We're talking Israel, Neil, not Egypt: get out of Denial.

Oh, I'll be happy to, when you quit residing in "Slandertown." :rolleyes:

Wrong again, David: I present sources to back my claim, and counter-arguments for extremism. You clearly don't like it, and so you resort to name-calling.

How mature of you. :freaky:

Source? And again, you cannot prove that this is anything resembling a regular occurrance. CERTAINLY not one approved by the PA.

There are photos of these things all over the internet, Neil. I haven't seen any lately, but they drag the poor SOBs through the streets, hang them up by one leg, hang them by the neck, shoot them with machine guns, disembowel them.

OK, my sober, uncensored response...?

Wait for it....

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh please. "These things are ALL over the internet!" is NOT a source! Oh, brother!

But where were we? Oh, right! You were taking me down a few pegs for "simply denying" whatever people say!

Well, David, at least there's one difference btw you, and me...

I like to back my words, with documentation.
YOU seem to like to slander people with vague aspersions, and when called for documentation, you vaguely point to the internet.

Whoah. Your stunning argument sure blew ME away. :drool:

This is what it is to speak out against the Arab genocide against Israel. They will kill their own as readily as they will kill the Jews.

And the last time you actually SPOKE to a Palestinian, or Arab living in the MidEast was...?

Ah. You looked at him like he was crazy. That is a substantial turning point in history, indeed. But why didn't you start in 2000, when Palestinians were bombing buses full of unarmed Israeli children? Do you know that US money was diverted from "aid" payments to make those murder weapons?

Quite unlike the billions diverted to Israel to make those muder weapons that bombed Lebanese civilians in their sleep.

No, in THAT case, the Israeli's were right; while in YOUR case, the Palestinian's were wrong.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

No need. Jenin was a well-established center for terrorists.

And you know this, how...? ooh, lemme guess...IDF press releases, perchance?

They had taken over the city and were operating regularly from there. And the whole "massacre of Jenin" has been proven to be a farce. Only a fraction of the claimed casualties occurred and they were overwhelmingly armed fighters.

Wow, David. I must congratulate you. You managed to go from calling ME an apologist for racist bloodletting; while simultaneously pooh-poohing the lives of Palestinian's living in Jenin, who were murdered.

YEAH: it might not have been "hundreds:" but so what? It was at LEAST 25. The IDF were shooting into the LARGEST REFUGEE CAMP IN THE WEST BANK.

I know, that doesn't mean much to you, as Israel can do no wrong. So, 25 people isn't really a "massacre," as they weren't really "people," to begin with...they were "armed fighters."

And, how do you KNOW that they were armed fighters? Were you there? No, you listened to Israel-friendly reports, and then went back to sleep.

Look, the Palestinians have proven that they will kill their own children, who will blow up themselves, their wives and children, and will kill Israelis and any Palestinians who are not against the Israelis. You are a bigger apologist for murder.

And this statement, above: is racist. ALL Palestinian's do NOT support suicide bombings.

And, I'd appreciate it if you quit with the personal remarks. If you wish to call my posts "apologizing:" be my guest. But, notice? I have yet to label you with a personal slur.

Not that you probably care, at this point (having thrown etiquette mostly out the window): but you might take this as a friendly reminder...I do not tolerate personal slurs, for long. If you cannot keep it friendly, I'll just put you on ignore.

Since they've never had a nation, they can hardly be soldiers, can they? But they are often active members of "militias" which are basically Klan-style organizations.

Or, brigades of freedom against tyranny, depending upon whom you ask. Gosh, that comparison to the KKK sure SOUNDS like a racist slur, to me....ahem.

Have you never seen the funerals where hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians march in their dead-on KKK uniforms, all white, complete with the pointy hoods and with green sashes, carrying rifles and strapped with suicide belts (and carrying children strapped with suicide belts)?

Nope, no cultural biases here at all,,,uh huh, nothing to see, here...expect, of course, the fact that those Palestinian's probably never even HEARD of the KKK, and the comparative reference to the KKK is entirely your own...

Nice hole you're digging for yourself, David. Keep at it. You WON'T get to the truth that way, tho: no matter how hard you dig.

Are you saying you've never seen the pictures and videos of those rallies, complete with "dead" guys who jump off the stretcher at the end of the parade?

[quote]Well, you just contradicted yourself. You said earlier that there is NO substantial debate about those policies within Israel, even though you keep referring to Israelis who openly debate it.

It's really sad that the budgets for education have been cut: I can see that SOMEONE needs some refreshers in reading comprehension.

Very nice, David: you managed to read the complete sentences and prop up some semi-cogent strawmen.

But what you failed to do is to surmise the subtleties of the discussion. Notice? I bolded the key-word in the quote..."substantial."

Sure, you've managed to come up with a protest here, a quote there: but where is the SUBSTANTIAL debate, within Israeli society?

So, no: I did NOT just contradict myself...you failed to read the post, very carefully.

But how many Palestinians have you met who will admit the pure racist basis of their hatred of the Jews--that their claim to Palestine is purely racial and religious minority cleansing?

*Sigh* Typppiinggggg verrrrry sllllloooooooowwwwwlllly fooooorrr youuuuuuu, DDDDDDDDaaaaaaaavvvvvvviiiiiiiddddddddddd.

1. An individual is NOT a society.
2. Societies can have racist beliefs; as can individuals.
3. An individual espousing a racist belief, is NOT the same thing, as a societal presumption.
4. Some individuals talking about the prevalent racism within their own societies is NOT an acknowledgement of their own racism. I said as much to James, in a previous thread.

I can talk about the racism inherent in, say: the circumstances of Katrina, and not even begin to talk about my OWN racisms and prejudices.

This is an idea you would do well to consider.

No, you have your metaphors backward. The "doctor" has been telling Israel to give up land. They give it up and the get attacked.

And how the devil is SO in the details, here. Of course, you forget to mention that the "doctor" told Isreal to do no such thing (at least, in the form the "pullout" took). The measure was initiated unilaterally by Sharon, and was more of a defensive move to consolidate control, rather than some sort of "gift" (as if you can "gift" someone with what you stole from them, in the first place).

Everytime they follow the UN's demands, the Palestinians grow more savage. More UN Kool Aid, they don't need.

Oh, more wisdom, followed up by numerous sources, to prove your point.

Not. :rolleyes:

I don't think they're interested in your kind of love. They just don't want to be murdered in their cafes and on their buses and they don't want idiots who think they're promoting humanity and peace to be supporting the suicide bombers.

Thank you so much for your careful, thoughtful post, free of personal slur and full of Aiki-wisdom. Chastened, I can now retire to ponder the wisdom of your words.

Riight.

That's your second warning, David. I fear that you have gone too far into Invective-ville, to prove your point. Take it from an old salt of e-debates: further posts in this theme are counter-productive.

I suggest, that if you seriously want to discuss issues: you do it in a measure of mutual respect. You can verbally cut up on my posts all you like, AFAIC: but I see no value in trading personal jibes.

If you do, well: the ignore button awaits, as my response.

:ai: :ki: :do:

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 08:10 PM
David

For a change, I found I could truelly fully agree with your post #91.

Amir

I'm sorry you feel that way, Amir. Shall you go the route of salting your posts with invective, too? :uch:

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 08:41 PM
Did you not just agree the situation is complex. How can you expect multiple clear convictions in a complex situation. No justice system works this way, not even for civilians.

Sorry, I asked for some clarity. Now, why does this make you uncomfortable?

Sure, the situation is complex: but your statement rings hollow, sans facts. Put up, or....don't.

It does happen, though much less now. But the reason is quite not the one you imply:
After the last 3-4 years, the PA soldiers realized the IDF will fire upon them if they carry arms near Israeli soldiers. This was not always the case, once their were common patrols and headquarters, but after in some cases a PA soldier from the "common force" opened fire on his Israeli "partners". And multiple more cases of similar nature. This is the present state.

Your hedging. For whatever reason, it doesn't happen very often. So, there you are.

And I wish we did not need to be that heavily armed, and could have turned significant parts of the budget and attention to other very important issues such as education, health, road safety and environment.

Oh, stop. You don't need to be so heavily armed. You CERTAINLY don't need nuc's...even tho you've got them (oh, sorry! "Israel denies that it possesses nuclear weapons!") :crazy:

Easy to understand, but apparently as I have pointed previously, it is almost impossible to follow in realistic conditions.

Sorry, but you didn't.

After all, you have agreed with me about the numerous violations of many other countries.

Yes, and as I said before: 2 wrongs, doth not a right, make. "Well, THEY commit violations, TOO!" is not a valid defence.

I disagree. And I would like a guarantee that if Israel is attacked by any significant force, you will kill yourself and all your family in a demonstration for us.

And they said that extremism is dead on Aikiweb! :hypno:

And, my killing myself and all my family, would prove WHAT, exactly? That I'm an extremist, too??? :yuck:

If may seem gross to you, nut myself, I still have doubts if I should not move out to safe keep my family.
I do not trust anyone in the world to come to Israeli rescue. Not even after the gallant "desert storm" operation to save Kuwait. Had it been Israel, we would have been slaughtered just like the Black natives are in Sudan.
If you truly do not realize this point, and learn to accept it as a part of a sad reality. Any discussion we could have would remain moot.

And, you cannot prove to me that Israel is in immediate threat to its existence, no matter how strongly you put it.

Over here in the US, we've heard that the 9-11 attack was a "threat" to our "existence," too. Well, I suppose it could have been, had the Towers fallen on Wall Street. But it didn't: and so it's not.

In my book: a "threat" to a country's existence entails
1. An immediate danger to civilian infrastructure.

Sure, suicide bombs and Qassam rockets are threats to some aspects of Israeli life, but once the smoke clears, you rebuild.

You certainly do not have the same problems as Gaza, when you all decided what fun it would be, to bomb their only electrical plant.

Now, THAT's a threat!

2. An potential end to the current government (barring natural, internal changes, such as nonviolent civil wars, etc).

Is Palestine marching on Tel Aviv? Do you have foreign Occupiers within Israel's borders? No, you don't; and so that leaves only

3. Attacks or damage to vital resources

So, yeah: I'd agree with you that Israel is in an immediate, dire threat, if the bombers PERMANENTLY destroyed vital resources, such as important, irreplaceable reserviors.

And yeah: I'll even go so far as to say that Israel, at times, IS in danger. But, you, and others, push this particular panic-button too many times. From my tiny window on the world: it looks to me as if Israel is still standing. The trains still run; the airport still lands its planes.

Perhaps I'd view the situation differently, over there...or, perhaps not. (*shrug*) Who knows.

"Israel has done\can do no wrong", Where did you bring this absurd idea from?

From Gideon Levy, reporter of Haaretz. You really should read your own paper (or, at least the links I post, in this very thread), from time to time.

Just proves how wrong you are. The internal debates here do consider morality, as well as many other issues.
But, most people in the Israeli left also acknowledge the real threat Israel is facing from the Arab\Islamic world. And they too accept a nation must survive first and be moral second. However, unlike your previous Cate-Blanch, many (not all) Israelis do not consider it this way, and still expect our nation to be moral and aspire for better.

Funny, but Yehuda Shaul might just disagree with you:

Breaking the Silence: Fmr. Israeli Soldier Tours U.S. to Expose Abuse of Palestinians by Israeli Military (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/27/1341203)

I’m here in the United States, because, I would say, we in Breaking the Silence see the act of breaking the silence as an act of taking responsibility. As ex-Israeli soldiers, who’ve served as combat soldiers in the Occupied Territories and were there and committed all what we’re talking about, we're part of the occupation. After we were discharged and realized what we were doing and what was going on around us, there was only two options, as I see it. There’s or to lock ourselves in the room, cry and ask forgiveness, or to stand up and take responsibility and demand from others to take responsibility.

So, in my eyes, breaking the silence, standing up and telling the stories and trying to bring people to know and to realize and to understand what it means, occupation, on a daily basis, through these testimonies that we publish and the pictures that we had in the exhibition, is demanding from Israeli society to take responsibility for it, for what is being done in their behalf.

And in my eyes, in our eyes, responsibility doesn't end with ex-soldiers who served there or with Israelis, or the idea if our army as Israelis is doing all these things. Responsibility is to every human being in the world, and for sure for Americans, because in the end of the day for all what Israel does, there is only one country in the world that, you know, the chief of staff and the prime minister of Israel has to report in the end of the day, and that's the United States of America. For that reason, I think that people of America must know what's going on there and must break their own silence and take civil responsibility, human responsibility, to what is being done there.

I'd just like to close by expressing my desire to keep this conversation civil, Amir. We might not see eye to eye: but we have always kept the tone polite, and I appreciate that.

Neil Mick
11-16-2006, 08:45 PM
If I had meant it to be condescending in any way, I would have used some emoticons.
Tom

Trivializing, sans emoticons, is still, in the end, trivializing. It doesn't move the debate along, and it sounds, by and large, like nothing more than sour grapes.

You don't agree with me? Fine. Great, even! Prove me wrong. Cite and link sources to widen my education.

Tom Fish
11-17-2006, 06:24 AM
Mr. Mick,
I'll make this real easy for you. This thread is the source so if you are reading this you are linked. I understand that you need to use inaccurate analogies(read your posts containing analogies),
because accurate analogies would have made the wrong point.I understand why you need to take things out of context,(read your posts taking things out of context) because you need to misconstrue what people say to make a point. And I understand why you think my posts are trivializations, (read your posts where you dispute just about everything else) because you don't want to believe that anything anybody says (contrary to you beliefs) contain any amount of truth. I really am not concerned with your feelings about any of my posts, but I would like others that are part of this thread to understand that I think this topic is very serious and my consideration of this topic has been serious as well.
Tom

Mike Sigman
11-17-2006, 09:39 AM
iyou know as well as i do, Mike, that the Lebanese government wants Hezzbollah out more than anyone else. more than Israel.



yes, i was in Lebanon when the Hezzbolah suicide bomber killed 250 marines. i don't see what that has to do with helping Lebanon rid themselves of Syrian and Iranian influence.

most Arabs and Europeans think Palestinians deserve their own land and a place to live. most Jews and Americans wish the same thing upon Israel. I personally agree with both.

doesn't Lebanon deserve the same thing? Lebanon is getting no help from the press, not even the liberals. no help from the US, EU, Arabs, or Israel. nobody cares if it gets destroyed, and most people think Lebanon is better off if it goes back in Syria's hands. even when Israel's powerful army and US backing couldn't disarm Hezzbolah, Lebanon's death and destruction this summer was blamed on none other than the Lebanese government, who was more interested in rebuilding than starting a civil war that they could never win anyway.
[snip] if that happens, you can kiss Siniora's pro-west, democratic government goodbye, because once again, the West won't do a thing to prevent Syria from waltzing right in.

then you'll have Shia's dominating Lebanese government and military; you can see where this is leading, Mike...

Israel can't have its cake and eat it too. you can't weaken Siniora's government because it doesn't pose a threat to Israel. if supporting Siniora weakens Olmert, let me ask you: how can Olmert's popularity get any lower, and what would happen to Israel if Hezbollah and Syria capture power?This is basically bullshit. Hezbollah is re-arming and the kidnapped soldiers have not been returned. Despite the "ceasefire" you and so many others were crying for. That is NOT Israel's fault. Siniora has helped block any meaningful restraints on Hezbollah and has insisted that they not be dis-armed.

Quit blaming Israel and the US for Arab scoundrels and criminals. Lebanon made NO EFFORT to disarm Hezbollah and refused outside aid from countries which would have helped disarm Hezbollah. Lebanon is NOT an innocent victim... Lebanon is part of the problem and they always have been. If there is another battle, started by Hezbollah and Lebanese elements, which have been voted in by the Lebanese people, then let Lebanon pay a big price. Being nice to Lebanon and the Arabs has been shown to do nothing more than allow them time to attack the good guys in the future.

Mike Sigman

Cady Goldfield
11-17-2006, 10:37 AM
Y'all may not like Mike for his conservatism across the board, along with his frequently rude and rough mannerisms, but he is absolutely clear-viewed in this case, and I agree with him.

It's convenient to blame Israel and the U.S. for a colorful array of reasons (apologist self-loathing for certain Americans; joy at toppling the resented world super-power and the tiny country it champions, for non-Americans, among other reasons), while choosing to overlook the complicity of Arab nations.

Note that in nearly all of those countries, all of which are either kingdoms, principalities, emirates, or regines, a small handful of elite control virtually ALL of the resources (chiefly oil), keep the bulk of their people in poverty and ignorance, then shift outrage away from themselves by pointing to the Jews and West as scapegoats so the people won't realize they're being robbed blind by their own rulers. Re-directly outrage toward an outside "enemy" is classic bait-and-switch so you don't see the corruption at home.

To help fuel the outrage, they allow vitriolic Jew-hatred to be taught in schools, in the form of teaching that the "blood libel" (the anti-Semitic myth that Jews kill Christian and Muslim children to use their blood in Passover unleavened bread/matzoh) is true, and that the phony document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- an anti-Semitic forgery feigning a blueprint by "Jewish Elders" take over the world, is used as a textbook of Jewish history and character, and treated as true.

By the way, where did billions of dollars in foreign aid to Palestinian Arabs go? Not to the poor and needy, but to Arafat and his henchmen. The nature of tribalism and warlords is to keep power and money to themselves, then to dole out funds in small and measured amounts, on occasion, so the people think that these corrupt rulers are beneficent and generous... Sort of like what Hezbollah did in southern Lebanon to show the locals that they are so much more benevolent and effective than Lebanon's official government.

Cady Goldfield
11-17-2006, 11:14 AM
By the way, since so few seem to know anything about the lives of Jews in Arab lands -- or about the persecution and expulsion of Jews from those countries after Israel was founded -- you may find this historic survey and research report interesting:

http://www.hsje.org/displacement_of_jews_from_arab_c.htm

Mike Sigman
11-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Y'all may not like Mike for his conservatism across the board, along with his frequently rude and rough mannerisms, but he is absolutely clear-viewed in this case, and I agree with him. Thanks for the personal comments, Cady. Er.... uncalled for though they were.

Don't get me wrong, either. I'm agnostic. I don't like people like Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, etc., anymore than I like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other liberals. I don't like either extremes. Since this list is heavily populated it liberals, don't mistake my being against the liberal viewpoints as the same thing as being for the conservative viewpoints. I believe in getting the common-sense things done without BS-ing around. This pretense that the Arabs are going to "come around" is ridiculous. It will never happen. The idea that the UN is going to "do some good", after all the corruption and games-playing, etc., is a waste of time, too.... that's not a "conservative" viewpoint; that's stark realism.

On the other hand, I'm against most religion being taught in school (people can pray to themselves if they want to, without forcing others to join in), I'm opposed to restricting abortion or any other medical service just because some groups have decided it's wrong, and so forth.

Most of all I'm opposed to anyone trying to tell me how to run my life. And if nothing else, the Muslims do that more than any other large group in the world. Anyone who sides with them.... sooner or later the Muslims will take them over, too. Look at S.E. Asia, now heavily dominated by Muslims; look at African countries falling one after the other; look at Pakistan, Kashmir, Chechen, Afghanistan, and all the rest. Islam must be stopped or it must willingly convert itself. They will not stop expanding until the world is dominated. Even now, they are trying to force parts of Sweden to come under Shariah law. It's time to do something.... not hope for the best.

My 2 cents.

Mike

Neil Mick
11-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Mr. Mick,
I'll make this real easy for you.

No, Mr. Fish, you won't. If you follow pattern, you'll talk down to me. And, from the first sentence, you haven't skipped a beat, in your usual song.

This thread is the source so if you are reading this you are linked.

Uhhh...riiiiiiiigght.

I can claim on this thread that the world is flat; and people will ask me why. Where is your source of information??

Why, I've just said it HERE, and so it must be.

Newsflash, Mr. Fish (since you seem new to the virtual debate circuit): there's several, very good reasons for requesting sources. It provides a "2nd, expert opinion" for those who don't simply take one at one's word (see gullible). It also allows the reader to examine your sources of information, and make their own minds up, independently.

The few times I hold my nose and glance at Mike Sigman's posts (mostly to find the even fewer sources, he links): I can easily see that his information outlets are limited, and few (The Conservative Times; FrontPageMagazine; etc).

They tell me a lot about where Mike's coming from.

I understand that you need to use inaccurate analogies(read your posts containing analogies),

If that's so, you understand squat.

Amir was right: they are absurd analogies, at times. But absurdity does not = inaccurate.

Absurdity is a tool I use to point out the absurdity of the argument to which I am responding.

because accurate analogies would have made the wrong point.

Lemme get this straight...

1. I post "inaccurate" analogies because, otherwise: they cannot stand up to the truth, but
2. Anytime I call for a source: all I have to do, is look at what I am reading, as this thread, itself, is a source.
3. So, by implication, everyone who disagrees with me and provides an analogy is 'accurate,' and nothing further need be questioned about it, as the source of proof, is right in front of my eyes.

Somebody out there: PLEASE help Mr. Fish understand the meaning of "absurdity." This argument he's providing sounds as absurd as they come. And while yer at it: toss him the definition of "irony," as well.

I understand why you need to take things out of context,(read your posts taking things out of context) because you need to misconstrue what people say to make a point.

I understand that you need to find a bad guy to argue against, because considering the other views would take too much work; and so that means me.

And I understand why you think my posts are trivializations,

I don't THINK they are trivializations: I KNOW it.

If you can show me how your last 2 posts have anything positive to add to the conversation: let's hear it.

(read your posts where you dispute just about everything else)

Nope: there were a few posts where I complimented the people writing.

And besides: don't blame me for the direction of the debate...just look at the title.

because you don't want to believe that anything anybody says (contrary to you beliefs) contain any amount of truth.

Say, Mr. Fish, you wouldn't be a "Conservative," would you?

I hear that Conservatives can read minds (or, at least: claim that they can)...is this REALLY true? So, you KNOW for a FACT that I think that everyone's wrong, but me?? :D :D

Please, keep jabbering: this is getting good. :D

I really am not concerned with your feelings about any of my posts,

Oh, Mother o MERCY!!! :D :uch: :D No, Lord, NO! Why, why why??!!! :D

but I would like others that are part of this thread to understand that I think this topic is very serious

Well, we agree on ONE thing...

and my consideration of this topic has been serious as well.
Tom

Serious? No doubt.

Openminded? Well... :blush:

Mike Sigman
11-17-2006, 02:45 PM
The few times I hold my nose and glance at Mike Sigman's posts (mostly to find the even fewer sources, he links): I can easily see that his information outlets are limited, and few (The Conservative Times; FrontPageMagazine; etc). I guess it's sort of embarrassing to point out that the opening post of this thread that I used came from the Times of London, eh? Besides, tell me a major liberal source that has not been impeached for bias or false stories more than, for instance, the infamous "Fox News"? It turns out that the factual number of errors, always favoring a liberal point of view, are far greater for the NY Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Interesting, eh? Not to mention that the charge of suppressing news has now become a big topic of discussion about journalism from the liberal side. Let's not start pointing at "sources", unless you want to get into a scarey debate, Neil. Even the BBC is now admitting that they're biased. They tell me a lot about where Mike's coming from. Hmmmmmm.... yes, I just recently returned from London, but that's not why I quoted the Times.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
11-17-2006, 03:14 PM
Y'all may not like Mike for his conservatism across the board, along with his frequently rude and rough mannerisms, but he is absolutely clear-viewed in this case, and I agree with him.

Well, since I don't take the time out to read his posts (I've had enough of online personal attacks to last me a few lifetimes): I'll just take your summation with a shrug, and a grain of salt.

It's convenient to blame Israel and the U.S. for a colorful array of reasons (apologist self-loathing for certain Americans; joy at toppling the resented world super-power and the tiny country it champions, for non-Americans, among other reasons),

You missed a few:
1. The US aided Israel in a highly illegal invasion and bombing campaign
2. Israel kills people on a near daily basis, with little redress or seeming remorse.
3. The process of grievance within the UN against Israel is routinely hindered by the US...like clockwork. More than 1/2 the times the US used its veto-power within the SC, it was in defence of Israel.
4. Thousands locked up in indefinite administrative detentions.
5. Building an Apartheid Wall that makes no bones about building on people's property; separating them from their farmlands; or literally walling up entire cities from the outside world.
6. The obvious, militaristic and symbiotic relationship btw the IDF and the Pentagon. Amir's claims notwithstanding, Israel has one of the largest armies in the world, complete with the backing of the only superpower (and, isn't it funny, that Israel seems alone in not backing a ban on nuclear weapons in the MidEast, hmm? Or, maybe not, so funny).

6a. This superpower does not generally press Israel to conduct peace with its neighbors: quite the opposite. The US, for its part, has more weapons that all of the other armies of the world, combined. We export 60% of the small arms of the world, while gearing up for more war (with Iran and N. Korea) in a nearly unending export of war around the world.

The US has long discovered (since Jefferson) that war is good business. But, it wasn't until Eisenhower that the interests of corporate wealth, standing armies and gov't merged into the "military industrial complex" that we have today.

6b. The symbiotic, US-Israel relationship sometimes leads the US into decisions adverse to its interests, as the Lebanon campaign was. This is not just bad for the US: but bad, for the rest of the world.

7. The US supports violent, murderous leaders in its drive for the allmighty oil (speaking of Uzbekistan...)

apologist self-loathing for certain Americans

Oh, and if this was directed at me: then it's a misnomer. I happen to love both my country, and myself. No self-loathing, here. :cool:

while choosing to overlook the complicity of Arab nations.

Hmm...such as...Saudi Arabia...?

Note that in nearly all of those countries, all of which are either kingdoms, principalities, emirates, or regines, a small handful of elite control virtually ALL of the resources (chiefly oil), keep the bulk of their people in poverty and ignorance, then shift outrage away from themselves by pointing to the Jews and West as scapegoats so the people won't realize they're being robbed blind by their own rulers. Re-directly outrage toward an outside "enemy" is classic bait-and-switch so you don't see the corruption at home.

To help fuel the outrage, they allow vitriolic Jew-hatred to be taught in schools, in the form of teaching that the "blood libel" (the anti-Semitic myth that Jews kill Christian and Muslim children to use their blood in Passover unleavened bread/matzoh) is true, and that the phony document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- an anti-Semitic forgery feigning a blueprint by "Jewish Elders" take over the world, is used as a textbook of Jewish history and character, and treated as true.

You're absolutely right, Cady: all these things DO happen...and it IS wrong. The Arabic leaders are hardly saints; and the Jews in Arab countries are sometimes (how much? I don't know) treated badly (not, that this was always the case, throughout history. The Moors in Spain treated their Jewish population with remarkable tolerance, most of the time).

Yes, intolerance for Jews is out there, no question. But, the bulk of my tax dollars are not going out to imprison Jews in Syria, Jordan, et al.

But, they ARE going to shoot at Palestinian's in Israel. Worse, a LOT of money is shuffled into the coffers of my Congressmen, to insure that they vote pro-Israel (last time I checked (05/06), my own Senator, Dianne Feinstein, received $65,000 from AIPAC ALONE, in just the first 6 months of '06).

You cannot make any similar claims about the Arab lobby, in the US. They're on the FBI watch list and can barely keep an office running.

By the way, where did billions of dollars in foreign aid to Palestinian Arabs go?

I dunno: rather than make wild, random accusations: how about providing some sort of source, to make your claim?

Not to the poor and needy, but to Arafat and his henchmen. The nature of tribalism and warlords is to keep power and money to themselves, then to dole out funds in small and measured amounts, on occasion, so the people think that these corrupt rulers are beneficent and generous...

Hmm..are you sure you aren't talking about New Orleans, post-Katrina? Sounds EXACTLY the same... :hypno:

Sort of like what Hezbollah did in southern Lebanon to show the locals that they are so much more benevolent and effective than Lebanon's official government.

Oh, you mean the promises to "totally rebuild," after the IDF dropped its "beneficence" and "generosity," all over innocent Lebanese civilians?

Perhaps, if Israel didn't jump the gun (literally) and decide to "get Medieval" on Lebanon: perhaps the opening for Hezbollah to act as the "great savior" wouldn't have materialized, hmm?

Steve Mullen
11-17-2006, 05:35 PM
So mike, would a fair sumnation of your standpoint be that the evil in the world must be stopped at any cost?

Mike Sigman
11-17-2006, 05:53 PM
So mike, would a fair sumnation of your standpoint be that the evil in the world must be stopped at any cost?Why would we divert this thread to worrying about my particular philosophies and standpoints? Are you stalking me?
;)

Mike

Guilty Spark
11-17-2006, 08:05 PM
the evil in the world must be stopped at any cost?
Yes,
For the greater good, of course.



Purge the heretics :D

David Orange
11-17-2006, 09:03 PM
Arabs fled the region in 1948 not only because of fellow states, most run because they could leave the war-zone (wouldn't you leave had you a brother\cousin living elsewhere). Some were activly forced or frightened to live by Israeli army or (more often Ezel & Lehi Jewish brigands). The exact numbers and reasoning will remain obscure, since today all would be likely to give you the answer that benefits their national aspirations.

Amir,

I respect that it's not all cut and dried. Some Arabs were forced out by the Jews, but mostly they were begged to stay because I believe the Jews sincerely did not intend to create a racist state. Now, the Palestinians tell us that all the refugees were forced out, but I am convinced that most of them moved out to give a free field of fire to the invading arab armies. Why am I convinced more now than ever? Because just a few weeks ago Hezbollah tried the same tactic, encouraging all the Arabs to withdraw from Haifa so that Hezbo could rain destruction on that city without fear of shedding muslim blood. But those Arabs said "Not again!" So there was a first time, and that was 1948. At least that's how I'm convinced the majority of it happened. Still, I know that some of the refugees were driven out by Jewish fighters.

Another example is the brits who, alnogside the Balfur decleration, gave the Arabs promises regarding the same peace of land...

Moshe Feldenkrais was in Palestine in the early days of Haganah and he said that the British actively stirred trouble between the Arabs and the Jews. It was their "divide and control" mentality at the cost of the blood of the local people.

Still, when WWII came, the Palestinian Jews joined the British military and fought for England, while the Palestinian Arabs overwhelmingly supported Rommel and Hitler. As I said earlier, the Grand Mufti fled the British and was warmly received by Adolph, later to create the Bosnian SS.

No, it's not all black and white, but clear enough for me to tell the difference.

Thanks and best to you.

David

David Orange
11-17-2006, 09:11 PM
...I would like others that are part of this thread to understand that I think this topic is very serious and my consideration of this topic has been serious as well.

Tom, that is clear. Your only mistake has been in treating Neil as someone who cares about truth or elaborations of fact. He'll just disregard it and rant on. I've lost interest in bothering with him. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from peeing in it.

David

Neil Mick
11-17-2006, 10:25 PM
I've lost interest in bothering with him.


Excellent. You're right, David: I'm not worth your time.

Next!

Tom Fish
11-18-2006, 07:06 AM
Mr. Mick,
I've carefully read and re-read your answer to last post. I really appreciate your time in clearing up my mis-understanding. You are absolutely correct about my poor communication skills as I have a lot to learn about everything. The thing about irony had me a little confused though until I figured out that the poor taste you have after taking vitamins was another absurd analogy. Then it all became clear (the poor taste, the boorish behavior, the absurd falsehoods). In my closed mind and conservative heart, I now hold you with the same regard as Bill Oreilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Jerry Fallwell and others who use these same powerful communications tools to loft their opinions above all others. From now on, I'll just shoot you an emoticon so that you understand that I get it. The words allways fail me and the emoticons mean so much. Now you have the last word and can shut off my microphone. I'm only fifty four years old and still have a lot to learn. This newfangled electrical computerator I have here has some shiney buttons I need to press.

Guilty Spark
11-18-2006, 08:21 AM
Tom, it's always interesting to see the results when older fellows learn how to use the Internet ;)

Here's a term a friend of mine coined. TV Zealot.

It's someone who watches one channel and one channel only. When someone tires to change the channel (ie change the direction of a message thread) the TV Zealot stands up and turns the channel right back. Very focused.
(Much like a black lab and a tennis ball heh)

They only seem to go to someone elses house (another thread) if their playing the same channel.
When at someone elses house they do their very best to change the channel back to what they like watching. These types always seem to find a way to get their digs in and try to bring any topic more towards what they love debating.

Even if people refuse to change the channel said person still sits back and fires away just so everyone present knows THEY want to watch something else :)

Tom the topic IS very serious but you're going to frustrate yourself because some people (um guilty) will only throw in their 2 cents as an after thought because they don't care OR have given up on it because they've seen too many people who just refuse to see any point of view other than their own.

Trying to debate something with someone who is incapable of changing their point of view is a waste of energy and I strongly suggest you don't loose sleep over it my friend.

This Israel vs Palastine stuff reminds me of people arguing who the bad guys are, Croatia or Serbia.

Neil Mick
11-18-2006, 10:47 AM
Mr. Mick,
The thing about irony had me a little confused though until I figured out that the poor taste you have after taking vitamins was another absurd analogy.

:confused:

In my closed mind and conservative heart, I now hold you with the same regard as Bill Oreilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Jerry Fallwell and others who use these same powerful communications tools to loft their opinions above all others.

:yuck:

From now on, I'll just shoot you an emoticon so that you understand that I get it.

;)

Neil Mick
11-18-2006, 10:55 AM
Trying to debate something with someone who is incapable of changing their point of view is a waste of energy and I strongly suggest you don't loose sleep over it my friend.

If you know of someone who actually changed his mind due to an online debate, Grant, I would be most surprised.

Ppl online do not argue to change each other's minds.

They argue to score debating points.

They ALSO debate to learn more about the topic of debate. It's how I learned about Iraq.

This Israel vs Palastine stuff reminds me of people arguing who the bad guys are, Croatia or Serbia.

Yep.

Tom Fish
11-18-2006, 11:05 AM
Mr. Mick :)
Best Regards
Tom

Guilty Spark
11-18-2006, 01:05 PM
If you know of someone who actually changed his mind due to an online debate, Grant, I would be most surprised.
Just me :)


Ppl online do not argue to change each other's minds.

They argue to score debating points.

Right man. So if someone KNOWS the other person will simply not change their mind, does that mean if someone continues to 'score points' they are doing so to look smarter than the person or in effect "beat" them? For their ego?

They ALSO debate to learn more about the topic of debate. It's how I learned about Iraq.
I attempt to to do the same. I guess the trick is in finding someone who has an objective point of view and not too far on either side of the fence.

Neil Mick
11-18-2006, 07:31 PM
Mr. Mick :)
Best Regards
Tom

Right back achya, Mr. Fish! :cool:
--Neil

Neil Mick
11-18-2006, 07:45 PM
Just me :)

OK, I should amend that (as, I've changed my own mind a few times, thru online debate).

"If you know of someone who actually changed his mind due to an online debate, when he'd already made up his mind, beforehand, Grant, I would be most surprised."

I HAVE seen ppl change or their minds or adopt a new stance, on occasion. But, it usually occurs when the person was sitting on the fence, or did not have a strong viewpoint, one way or the other.

Right man. So if someone KNOWS the other person will simply not change their mind, does that mean if someone continues to 'score points' they are doing so to look smarter than the person or in effect "beat" them? For their ego?

Yes, IMO. I believe that much of political online debating is simply egoistic chest-beating...to score points with themselves, or with their like-minded cohorts.

BUT,

It can also be done to inspire a person to research an issue, or simply out of a desire to inform others.

But, most ppl do it for the ego-strokes.

I attempt to to do the same. I guess the trick is in finding someone who has an objective point of view and not too far on either side of the fence.

I think that the most important thing is to find someone who will be respectful and give some due, where it's given.

I had the most interesting debates with a (self-professed) hard-line Conservative, a police officer assigned to riot-control in DC, both here on AW and AJ. We had few points of agreement, but we were light on the insults and acknowledged when the other debater made a good point.

When the occasional frothy-mouthed Libertarian cut in, he privately acknowledged to me how the guy was just going overboard, in his view. And, when I was finally railroaded off AJ (due to repeated complaining from said Libertarian), he (the policeman) was the first to protest.

Respect, IMO: is the most important thing in a debate...not, finding someone with objectivity. Altho, that can be fun, too. :cool:

Mike Sigman
11-18-2006, 09:43 PM
, when I was finally railroaded off AJ (due to repeated complaining from said Libertarian), I guess that pretty much tells all the people who complain about Neil's extremist posts how much it's getting to him. It's always "the other guy's fault.".... liberalism at its best. ;)

The thread topic is about how everyone like Neil was complaining about those "mean old Jews".... but now Hezbollah has re-armed, despite protestations that the "cease-fire would prevent that" and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers (kidnapped by going into Israel) have never been returned. Oddly... the people who were screaming for Israel to stop reacting to Hezbollah aren't saying a word as long as it looks like the Arabs are winning. Not a single complaint to date.

Mike

Amir Krause
11-19-2006, 08:35 AM
The thread topic is about how everyone like Neil was complaining about those "mean old Jews".... but now Hezbollah has re-armed, despite protestations that the "cease-fire would prevent that" and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers (kidnapped by going into Israel) have never been returned. Oddly... the people who were screaming for Israel to stop reacting to Hezbollah aren't saying a word as long as it looks like the Arabs are winning. Not a single complaint to date.



As far as I read in the news, the people who mostly suffer from HA now are the Lebanese themselves. Who, once again, force themselves into the becoming the weaker side in their negotiations with HA, declaring they will avoid an internal civil war at all costs. Thus letting HA blackmail them into submission. And inviting the next war with Israel to be sooner, rather then a peace agreement.
The Israeli Govt. is also at fault in this regard. Though, as I have often wrote to Luc previously, Israeli action was only possible with extreme delicacy and skill, two of the skills this Govt. has long ago prooven to lack.


As far as the war results, Mike, newsflash: no-one expected different results at the wars end. In fact, Neil anticipated a the cease fire to break months ago. The blow HA received was not as significant as the propaganda victory the IDF gave it when the latter failed to achieve its war objectives.


Amir

P.S.

Neil,
given your definition of objectives in discussion, and your discussion tactic of trying to ridicule. I once again loose interest in continuing my discussing with you.

Neil Mick
11-19-2006, 10:14 AM
Neil,
given your definition of objectives in discussion, and your discussion tactic of trying to ridicule. I once again loose interest in continuing my discussing with you.

Amir,

Given your propensity to pick and choose your verbal battles and to debate only when it suits you: I am astoundingly unsurprised.

But, it does remind me of a certain scene, from a certain movie...

:crazy: Run awwwwaaayyyy!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4) :crazy:

Tom Fish
11-19-2006, 11:54 AM
Amir,
With all due respect, you have always based your opinions on real world experience and facts while using this forum to help others undersand you viewpoint. If you would concern yourself less with the real issue and more with earning debate points, you will discover that people will give you more or less the respect you deserve. It would also help if you throw in some absurd analogies and go to extremes in defending undefendable positions.
It was my understanding that if Israel would withdraw from Leb., that the peace keeping force would insure that Hez. would do as it agreed. It is also my understanding that there has never been an agreement with Hez. or the PA. that they would not dishonor. My question still remains to be answered. Why should Israel not be allowed to defend herself?
Best Regards
Tom

Tom Fish
11-19-2006, 01:24 PM
Amir,
Please accept my apology for that last post. Your posts are honest and candid and you have my respect. I think I need to stop posting until I can remember why everyone deserves respect. It has never bothered me to have anyone disagree with me but I seem to have a problem with people who are disagreeable. I'll work on that. I'll also continue to read your posts and the posts of others that have contributed to the quality of this thread. I also apologize to the others who have contributed, for the lack of quality I have shown in this thread.
Best Regards
Tom

David Orange
11-19-2006, 01:39 PM
...it does remind me of a certain scene, from a certain movie...

:crazy: Run awwwwaaayyyy!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4) :crazy:

Yeah. Well, a different scene from the same movie comes to mind for most people when they witness your constant denial and self-contradiction:

Anyone: "I just cut your arm off!"

Neil: "No you didn't."

Anyone: "Yes, I did. It's lying there on the ground."

Neil: "It's only a fleshwound! ...Come back here and fight!" as the other party continues to cross the bridge without Neil.

Good luck with all of that.

David

Guilty Spark
11-19-2006, 03:15 PM
Neil thanks for the reply to my post, it was really well thought IMO.

Touching on that with Tom,
Tom I think you're like me (Or maybe I'm like you heh) in that when i believe I'm right I get very frustrated with people who don't see things the way I do. I just think, If i can make someone see it from my perspective then they might change their mind on the matter.

Some peoples opinions strike me as SO crazy that I start to get mad over it.

Neil gave a going point in that often arguing and debating online is simply a matter of Ego. You wanna beat the other guy, prove a point or make him seem wrong. I try to watch myself debating. If the other party doesn't look like they will even consider a different point of view then I assume I'm only continuing to argue just to prove a point or "score points". When that happens I'll usually withdraw, it's just not worth the headache and frustration buddy.

Steve Mullen
11-19-2006, 03:31 PM
Mike, of course im stalking you, who else did you think that dashing fellow in the bushes outside your house was? ;p

Neil Mick
11-20-2006, 03:39 AM
And, speaking of ego...


Good luck with all of that.

David

Yeah...point made. Thanks.

Amir Krause
11-20-2006, 04:41 AM
Amir,
Please accept my apology for that last post. Your posts are honest and candid and you have my respect. I think I need to stop posting until I can remember why everyone deserves respect. It has never bothered me to have anyone disagree with me but I seem to have a problem with people who are disagreeable. I'll work on that. I'll also continue to read your posts and the posts of others that have contributed to the quality of this thread. I also apologize to the others who have contributed, for the lack of quality I have shown in this thread.
Best Regards
Tom


Apology accepted.


Just to clarify. When deciding on posting in a thread, I do it because I think I can either contribute to it, bringing an additional point of view and maybe opening a few eyes, or learn from, or hopefully, both.
Most of my opinions are rather complex and far from the extreme right or left (at least in the Israeli context). Therefore, I am open to hearing other opinions and have changed my own opinions of things after or even during debates.
I do not claim not to have an ego, but I normally try not to view Internet debates as a contest, in a way, similarly to Aikido Randori, which in my system is a way of study, and not a fight simulation.

By nature, the issues discussed here are closer to me, my daily life, and my and my family future then to most of you out there, this does make me more emotional in a way, but I try to keep that under consideration.

Amir

Neil Mick
11-20-2006, 05:06 AM
It is also my understanding that there has never been an agreement with Hez. or the PA. that they would not dishonor.

Excellent. This question kicks off my next point, quite nicely.

My question still remains to be answered. Why should Israel not be allowed to defend herself?
Best Regards
Tom

Wrong question. A BETTER question would be: given that Israel has one of the largest militaries on the planet...what limits define "self-defence," or the expansionism of a "greater Israel?"

But, back to my first point.

To be honest, I hate taking the position of the Palestinian's. I am not a Palesinian, nor have I ever been to the OT (not, for lack of trying). It's really not fair for me to speak from their perspective.

But, you gotta wonder at the amazing span of sheer ignorance here that passes for fact, amongst some of you.

But I know, this isn't your fault, solely. And, just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of stupidity. I think everyone reading this has a brain, and I am making no judgement on how you use it.

No, my accusation lay in the media you watch, and how blindly accepting you are, of the situation in Pal.

I put to all these people the simple question..."have you ever spoken to a Palestinian, living in the OT?" The silence I got as answer spoke volumes. I imagine that Amir and Roy might have a story or two that they didn't share: but as for the rest of you...I'm still waiting to hear 'em.

Here, let's just cruise thru a few of the choice statements passed off as fact in the hit-parade, here on this thread, shall we?

1. I won't review the previous gaff's I've pointed out: the ridiculous notion that the IDF doesn't kill children; the simple untruth that no attempts have been made to exchange the hostages (spouted forth by Mikey, natch); these deterministic notions of "clashes of ideologies" ...no. Sorry, gentle reader: I won't bore you by rehashing proven points.

2. Let's start with the amount of support, the Palestinian's receive from the US.

All the Jews in the world are a drop in the bucket compared to the Arab world. Second, while the US gives to Israel, it gives to all those surrounding Arab countries as well. We give billions to the Palestinians. And rather than building the roads and schools and such for which it was intended, it goes into guns and bombs and secret bank accounts. The "Palestinian" population is also completely permeable to Arabs throughout that region.

Oh, really? "Billions?" Wrong. And worse, SO simple to look up.

United States Aid to the Palestinian's (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45198.pdf)

United States economic assistance for the Palestinians has averaged about $85 million per year since Israel and the PLO signed the 1993 Declaration of Principles. Congress wants to ensure that U.S. assistance is used for legitimate humanitarian projects and that no U.S. aid is diverted for military or terrorist use against Israel.

Moving on...

3. Amir, Roy, and severl others have repeatedly assured me that the morality of the Occupation is substantively discussed within Israeli society.

Yet, if this is so: then why has Yehuda Shaul, a former Israeli soldier, named his group (about spreading dialogue about the Occupation) "Breaking the Silence?" (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/27/1341203) Why are ppl like Amir seemingly afraid to consider this silence within Israeli society, with any depth?

4. The tone and implication of the thread is based on a fundamental lack of understanding, of basic facts involving the ceasefire, and the enforcement of the UN regulations:

Like the BS before World War II, our "Give Peace a Chance" factions in the world have led us to another predictable situation where more people will be killed than if the job had been done in the first place.

The point is that the UN and the countries that *insisted* on a cease-fire, but never enforced it, continue to look like the anti-Israeli, anti-Semites that the Europeans (and others) most definitely were in World War II.

Look at the "cease-fire" and the BS enforcement of it. Hezbollah is re-armed. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned. And so on. Nothing said or guaranteed by any Islamic country can ever be counted on. All they understand is extreme force; all the years of aid, "diplomacy", "hearts and minds", etc., have only wound up costing more lives, more money, and less safety. Exactly the lesson the Europeans should have learned from World War II.

Gods, this was so simple to research...must have taken me about 30 seconds... :blush:

Post-ceasefire events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon-Israel_war)

Post-ceasefire events
8/14/06, hours after the beginning of the ceasefire, about four mortars were fired inside southern Lebanon. An Israeli military spokesman said that Israel will not respond to their firing. On that day four more incidents were recorded when armed Hezbollah members said to have approached Israeli positions were killed.[167]
815/06 "Israeli soldiers opened fire when four Hezbollah fighters came toward them," three of the Hezbollah fighters were killed.[168] The same day, about 10 rockets were fired by Hezbollah inside southern Lebanon. Israel reiterated it wouldn't respond since the rockets did not cross border. [169]
8/16/06 Lebanese police sources reported that Israeli Defense Force warplanes launched four missiles toward targets in an eastern Lebanese village of Baalbek. Israeli sources acknowledge that its air force performs sorties over Lebanese territory, but denied breaking the ceasefire. Lebanese officials later contradicted the police sources stating that no missiles were fired by the Israeli planes.[170] The Associated Press reported that Hezbollah had fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets into southern Lebanon. The IDF stated that as none had crossed the border and there were no casualties, they did not respond. Earlier, skirmishes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah left six guerrillas dead.[171] UNIFIL also reported that the IDF fired a tank shell at the Lebanese village of Markaba but that there was no response from the other side.[172]
8/19/06 Israel launched a raid in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley it says was aimed to disrupt weapons supplies to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran.[173] Lebanese officials "said the Israelis were apparently seeking a guerrilla target in a school."[174] One Israeli soldier was killed, another mortally wounded, while 3 Hezbollah fighters were wounded. Hezbollah said it won't respond to the attack. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "deeply concerned" about an Israeli commando raid in eastern Lebanon Saturday, calling it a violation of a U.N.-backed ceasefire. The statement also cites UNIFIL troops as saying there have "also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft."[175] Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev told the Associated Press that "[t]he cease-fire is based on (U.N. resolution) 1701 which calls for an international arms embargo against Hezbollah."[173] Regev was referring to article 8 of the resolution which calls for an end to all weapons transfers to Hezbollah.
8/27/06 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that U.N. troops would not intercept Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah unless requested to do so by the Lebanese Government.[176]
29 August 2006 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that Israel had committed most of the truce violations and described Israel's continuing embargo as "a humiliation and an infringement on Lebanese sovereignty."[177] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israel's willingness to lift the blockade after full implementation of the U.N.-brokered cease fire.[178]
6 September 2006 the Israeli government announced that it would lift the blockade the following day at 6:00 PM local time (3:00 PM GMT).[179]
7 September 2006 the aviation blockade was lifted.
8 September 2006 the naval blockade was lifted.[180]
21 September 2006 Hezbollah supporters throw stones over border fence at Israeli patrols, seen as part of Hezbollah redeployments [181]
22 September 2006 Nasrallah claimed in a victory rally that Hezbollah possessed over 20,000 rockets and that it was stronger than before 12 July. According to various estimates, the organisation had fewer than 20,000 rockets before and fired about 4,000 rockets during the conflict. [182]
1 October 2006, the Israeli army reported that it had completed its withdrawal.[183] The UN has said Israel has withdrawn the bulk of its troops from Lebanon, fulfilling a key condition of the UN ceasefire ending war with Hezbollah, but that some Israeli troops remained in Ghajar. The IDF confirmed its forces were still operating near Ghajar, a village split in two by the border.[184] Because of the volatile nature of the place, Israel says it will maintain presence in Ghajar until a security agreement is reached with the UN and the Lebanese army. [185]
3 October, Israeli jet planes conducted mock exercises over Southern Lebanon. The first group conducted series of mock air raids over Nabatiyeh, Khiam and Marjayoun. The second group conducted similar manouvres over Iqlim al-Tuffah region and Western Bekaa Valley.[186][187][188]
22 October, Israel admitted to using white phosphorous in Lebanon. [189] Although Israel continues to deny the use of phosphorous on civilians, doctors in southern Lebanon have suspected some injuries were caused by contact with the chemical. [190]
23 October, Lebanese police reported Israeli "most intensive overflight" of Lebanon after the ceasefire. Two jets flew low over Beirut, while four more aircraft conducted sonic boom raid in Tyre.[191][192] France who leads UNIFIL troops called the continuing overflights "extremely dangerous".[193]
24 October, six Israeli F-16 flew over Germany vessel patrolling off Israel's coast just south of the Lebanese border. The German Defence Ministry said that the planes had given off infrared decoys and one of the aircraft had fired two shots into the air, which had not been specifically aimed. The Israeli military said that a German helicopter took off from the vessel without having coordinated this with Israel, and denied vehemently having fired any shots at the vessel and said "as of now" it also had no knowledge of the jets launching flares over it. Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz telephoned his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung to clarify that 'Israel has no intention to carry out any aggressive actions' against the German peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, who are there as part of UNIFIL to enforce an arms embargo against Hezbollah. Germany confirmed the consultations, and that both sides were interested in maintaining good cooperation.[194][195][196]
31 October 8 Israeli F-15's flew over Beirut and many areas in Lebanon. [197][198] Israeli jets also flew over French peacekeeper position in Lebanon, in a threatening dive-bomb position. The peacekeepers "almost" fired at IAF jets [199]

So, it's clear that just "blaming the Arab's" is sheer ignorance. Israel, apparently, is not blameless when it comes to violating the ceasefire.

Where they get these mistaken ideas is pretty obvious, given their lack of contact with the reality...from the media. There is a complex and layered web of media-filter btw the events in Palestine and the MidEast, and what gets on the tube in the US (and Israel...quick, you Israeli's...how many of you have seen "Gaza Strip," (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329112/) at a local theatre near you? Uh huh...thought so...)

How much does AIPAC interfere in our political process? If you really want an answer to that question (instead of taking the Amir "run-away" maneuver :p ): it's simple...follow the money.

If you really think that Hillary got up on a podium and spouted "We are all Israeli's!!" during the bloodiest part of the July campaign to the cameras: then I'd say that you are naive. Hillary & Co do it for the money.

This movie outlines how sophisticated and filtered the Israeli PR machine is, with the US foreign media.

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696)

Will you watch it, or is your mind already set?

Luc X Saroufim
11-20-2006, 02:16 PM
Siniora has helped block any meaningful restraints on Hezbollah and has insisted that they not be dis-armed.

go back to the 70's if you want to blame a Lebanese leader for Hezbollah's existence. by the time Siniora was elected in 2005, he inherited all that crap.

but he has handled himself very well after this summer: he does not preach hatred, he speaks positively, he talks about bright futures, he is pro-West, pro-democratic, and he talks about the only thing he should be talking about : LEBANON.

he is even better for Israel than he is for Lebanon. if Olmert was smart, he wouldn't have weakened Siniora's government. Siniora will never attack, there is more than enough evidence to support that he just wants to move on.

Mike Sigman
11-20-2006, 02:40 PM
go back to the 70's if you want to blame a Lebanese leader for Hezbollah's existence. by the time Siniora was elected in 2005, he inherited all that crap.

but he has handled himself very well after this summer: he does not preach hatred, he speaks positively, he talks about bright futures, he is pro-West, pro-democratic, and he talks about the only thing he should be talking about : LEBANON.

he is even better for Israel than he is for Lebanon. if Olmert was smart, he wouldn't have weakened Siniora's government. Siniora will never attack, there is more than enough evidence to support that he just wants to move on.Yeah, right. That's why Siniora was openly thanking Hezbollah for fighting Israel. Let's just go by what really happened instead of making up a fairy story about "what Siniora really meant". It was the Europeans who tried to interpret "what Hitler really meant" that got us into World War II.

If the Arab countries are disarmed, there will be peace in the Middle East. If Israel is disarmed, the Arab countries will gleefully destroy Israel. We all know that.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
11-20-2006, 02:46 PM
My question still remains to be answered. Why should Israel not be allowed to defend herself?
Best Regards
Tom

Wrong question. A BETTER question would be: given that Israel has one of the largest militaries on the planet...what limits define "self-defence," or the expansionism of a "greater Israel?" What an utter hogwash way to answer the question. Of course Israel can defend itself, even under international law. And there are no "limits" to responding to an attack by another party. The bogus term "disproportionate" that the whackos tried to use against Israel's respons was shown to be complete fabrication by the people who simply sided with the Arabs. The "expansionism" stuff is complete BS.... particularly if you look at the Muslims "expanding" in Africa, Southeast Asia, Kashmir, etc., etc., etc.

Cady Goldfield
11-20-2006, 03:36 PM
This interesting essay, written by social philosopher Eric Hoffer in 1968, is as timely today as it was then --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was written by Eric Hoffer, that uniquely American longshoreman/social philosopher. Hoffer lived from 1902 until 1983. He wrote nine books, countless columns, and hundreds of essays. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He wrote the following in 1968:

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
By Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and
Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every
single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser
triumphed last June, he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources.

Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general. I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.

http://www.nycat.org/

Luc X Saroufim
11-21-2006, 10:24 AM
"Once again, Lebanon has paid a heavy price for its determination to live in peace and independence," Solana said in a French-language statement.

Gemmayel was killed today, an anti-Syrian, pro-democratic minister of Siniora's Cabinet. one day before Lebanon's independence day.

"one down, 3 to go" Hezbollah is saying. if three more ministers "resign," the government will fall.

and Lebanon will be officially nothing more than Syrian and Iranian proxy.

while Israel, the US, Hezbollah, Syria, EU, and Iran all pretend to care, it's very clear Lebanon doesn't have a friend in the world. all we have wanted since 1990 is our independence. all we got instead was the same old Israeli bomblets, same old terrorists baiting Israel, same old Syria corrupting our government.

i've spoken to a lot of Israeli's, Americans about Lebanon, and most see Lebanon in better hands with Syria. beyond the pure idiocy of a statement like that, be careful what you wish for, because it looks like it's going to happen.

for some reason, Israel doesn't give a crap that it will be completely surrounded by Syria, Iran, and Palestians. can they not see the threat in this? by empowering Siniora's cabinet there are at least a little bit safer since Lebanon can't afford a 9mm, let alone nukes and terrorists.

so forgive me, Cady and Mike, while i spare my tears for another nation besides Israel, a country no one is allowed to touch, and whose embellical cord is attached to the only world superpower. there are other countries doing a little worse right now.

Luc X Saroufim
11-21-2006, 10:32 AM
The Jews are alone in the world. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.


listen i'm all for Israel's existence and peace in the Middle East. i think hatred is a step backwards, and i think Israel is a part of the Middle East and everyone should get over it.

but this whole fear mongoring tactic is just getting old. we've had enough unjustified pre-emptive strikes in Iraq. there's a reason the Democrats won in a landslide this election, because people are tired of hearing the same old stuff about how we're all in trouble.

with so much riding on Israel's existence, you don't think the US would step in if there was a legitimate conflict? i mean, it's not Lebanon or anything :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
11-21-2006, 10:33 AM
So, Luc... once again you turn a stupid mess that Arabs have gotten themselves into back into something to blame on Israel and the US. Why don't you scream at the Arabs?????????????????????? This silly game of always taking the complete incompetence of MIddle Easterners and trying to make it the fault of someone else is ludicrous.

Notice how all the protests of Arabs are about the Pope or whoever they can blame, but never a peep about the primitive daily stupidities, murders, rapes, corruption, etc., of the Arab. Start now. Leave Israel and the US out of your posts. Look at the real problem and you'll find more people respect your integrity.

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
11-21-2006, 10:42 AM
Mike,

i've made it pretty clear that i'm against Syria and Iran. unlike Lebanon, *they're* the ones that fund terrorists, and call for Israel's destruction. all i'm asking is: "since they're the real enemy, and Lebanon doesn't even have an army, why does Lebanon keep getting the shaft?"

what do i have against Israel? they weakened Siniora's government this summer. that's it. they were supposed to eradicate Hezbollah and instead bloodied up the good guys. if it weren't for that, i would have nothing negative to say about Israel at all.

as far as i'm concerned, they should probably just invade Lebanon again and get the job done this time, especially since Lebanon is getting taken over again. that would play out better in my eyes.

instead, any glimmer of hope for an independent Lebanon is now gone, and yes, Mike, it was all triggered by this summer's war. Iran and Syria are the key players, but they were waiting for the opportunity, and they got it.



1+1 = 2 , Mike, it's not really that complicated.

Mike Sigman
11-21-2006, 10:54 AM
i've made it pretty clear that i'm against Syria and Iran. Most of your posts are anti-Israel... you only do token comments about Arab countries. Same with Neil. As long as the primitive and corrupt Arabs can continue to play this false blame-placing on the US and Israel through people like Neil and you, they will continue to be what they are. Being what they are, we need to get harsher with the Muslims and the Middle East. Ultimately, if middle-easterners can't accept the blame for their own screwups, we need to put the clamps on.

Try putting blame where it belongs, Luc.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
11-21-2006, 11:09 AM
But Mike, the Arab nations have to keep focusing on false blame of Israel and the U.S. If they stop, then all of their people will instead begin to pay attention to all of the corruption and abuse being committed by their own leaders!

Scapegoats really help take the pressure off when you're a corrupt emir, sheik, king or warlord.

Mark Freeman
11-21-2006, 11:29 AM
Most of your posts are anti-Israel... you only do token comments about Arab countries. Same with Neil. As long as the primitive and corrupt Arabs can continue to play this false blame-placing on the US and Israel through people like Neil and you, they will continue to be what they are. Being what they are, we need to get harsher with the Muslims and the Middle East. Ultimately, if middle-easterners can't accept the blame for their own screwups, we need to put the clamps on.

Try putting blame where it belongs, Luc.

Mike

Curiosity forces me to ask, exactly what would "getting harsher" and "put the clamps on" entail, Mike?

regards,

Mark

Luc X Saroufim
11-21-2006, 11:51 AM
Siniora's response to Pierre Gemmayel's murder today: for those who don't know, Gemmayel's father is an icon in Lebanon, and always fought for democracy.

It is time for all Lebanese to stand united around the international court, as PM I call upon all Lebanese to come together as one to defend the security and their country. I call upon them to be vigilant to those plots which aim to destabilize Lebanon, I call upon all Lebanese in all their positions to take the responsibility in the face of this tragedy.

We in the government take the full responsibility to preserve the interests of Lebanon maintain stability in Lebanon.

To my brother, friend and hero Sheikh Pierre, I say you have proved yourself but they decided to silence you.

You know, brother, that this is the only language they understand, the language of killing and assassinations; they could only defeat you by silencing you.

To your beloved parents, to your wife and children, and to all your friends and to all the freedom loving people, I promise you your blood will not be shed in vain.

On behalf of the government, my brother, my friend and colleague, the minister the young Pierre Gemayel, give my regards to Rafik (Hariri) and all his companions. Say hello to Samir (Kassir), George (Hawi), Gebran (Tueni), and all those freedom loving people, and tell them they did not die in vain, but they died for the homeland, and you have joined them today.

Lebanon will always stand high and will continue with the will of its sons.

No matter how the murders try to silence and control Lebanon,
Lebanon will prevail!
Lebanon will prevail!
Lebanon will prevail!"

after the Beit Hanun incident, Hammas promised murder. Hezbollah invited the death and destruction of thousands of innocent Lebanese, and continue to destablize Lebanon. Iran calls to "wipe Israel off the map". don't even get me started with Syria.

and after all this, what word does Siniora use more than any other? "freedom" and "Lebanon"

no fighting, no death, no wars, just an independent Lebanon.


you, Mike, want Syria and Hezbollah in charge of Lebanon. and you want Israel to destroy it. in that case, take a number, and get in line.

but don't ever expect me to be silent.

Luc X Saroufim
11-21-2006, 11:57 AM
But Mike, the Arab nations have to keep focusing on false blame of Israel and the U.S. .

for the second time, which Arab nations?

Lebanon's ambassador to the US met with Bush in Washington, and we haven't seen any US action yet.

although, you don't see Siniora blaming the US for anything, do you? only Hezbollah does that, a party you and Mike seem to love.

Mike Sigman
11-21-2006, 12:23 PM
Curiosity forces me to ask, exactly what would "getting harsher" and "put the clamps on" entail, Mike? It means instead of feverishly sending more aid and fawning for love, the West needs to start shrugging off the Arabs duplicity and holding them accountable. If Syria is supplying arms to Lebanon, let's bomb them.... they tend to understand that. They just laugh at diplomacy and "negotiations". When it starts costing, and only then, will these fairly primitive people start listening.

Now back to your favorite channels of US bashing and Israel blaming. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
11-21-2006, 12:30 PM
This interesting essay, written by social philosopher Eric Hoffer in 1968, is as timely today as it was then --

Poor, poor Israel. In the meantime, while you're thoughtfully pouring over the dubious (and one-sided) wisdom of an article written in 1968, the casual disregard of human rights and dignity by Israel continues, as I type.

You want timely and thoughtful issues on the morality of the actions of the IDF? No need to crack open your history book: simply check out a newspaper:

Arab Delegation: Israel Occupation Hurting Women's Rights Movement

An Arab delegation to a European Union conference on the role of women in society said foreign occupation was hampering the movement for women's equality in Arab countries.

Palestinian Deputy Minister for Women's Affairs Salwa Hudeib: "In the end there are basic rights under international law to protect women and generally and to protect people under occupation. But with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the world remains silent to please Israel, which is unjust and not balanced. We have called in our speech on the international community, the United Nations, the Quartet and everyone who affects decision-making in the Middle East to protect Palestinians, and Palestinian women and children."
UN Panel: No "Clash of Civilizations"

The delegation's comments come on the heels of a report this week from a UN panel formed to improve relations between Muslim and Western societies. The panel -- called the Alliance of Civilizations -- concluded the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the driving force behind tensions between Muslims and the West. The report concludes: "The Israeli-Palestinian issue has taken on a symbolic value that colors cross cultural and political relations ... well beyond its limited geographic scope." Overall, the report argued the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one example of why global divisions should not be seen in terms of a "Clash of Civilizations" but rather geo-political conflicts. The reports' authors include Nobel Peace Prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami.

You want to know why the Israeli-Pal. issue is so important, and why Israel is being criticized for what other nations have already done? Well, perhaps it's the effect it has on the whole region, rather than how many ppl are directly affected.

Israeli Minister Calls for Broadening "Targeted Assassinations"

In Israel, a government cabinet minister is calling for an increase in the "targeted killing" of Palestinian leaders. In an address on public radio Thursday, Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer said the attacks should be broadened and that not even Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya should be immune.

Lovely. THAT should sure cement the bonds of peace, right? They can't seem to kidnap 'em fast enough: so let's just kill them, outright.

Perhaps that's what Mike means when he suggests that "we" need to "get harsher," and to "put on the clamps" (altho, truth be told: even Mike doesn't know what that would mean, as, even if Israel "got Medieval:" Mike wouldn't know exactly what this "Medieval" policy would entail, as I have already shown in my ceasefire timeline, above). :rolleyes:

Senior UN Official: Israel Commits "Massive" Violations of Palestinian Rights
In Israel and the Occupied Territories, at least two Palestinians were killed and one Israeli critically wounded in violence earlier today. In Gaza City, Israeli bulldozers plowed through Palestinian fields and irrigation systems, destroying land and knocking off power to several neighborhoods. On Monday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour visited Gaza and denounced what she called Israel's "massive" violation of Palestinian rights.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour: "I came here first of all to express my sympathies, my condolences and to show the concern of the whole of the United Nations for civilians that I think it speaks for itself -- how exposed and vulnerable they are. There, the violation of human rights, I think in these territories is massive from economic and social rights to this vulnerability to this violent that is totally out of control."

Study: 40% of Israeli Settlements Built on Private Palestinian Land
Meanwhile, a new study from the Israeli group Peace Now says nearly forty percent of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are built on privately-owned Palestinian land. Israel's largest settlement -- Ma'ale Adumim -- is built on eighty-five percent private land. Peace Now says the data was leaked by an Israeli official who wanted to expose violations of Palestinian property rights.

IDF Chief Orders Cluster Bomb Investigation
In other news from Israel, Israel's top military general has ordered an investigation into the use of cluster bombs during the Lebanon war. Israel has been widely criticized for targeting civilian areas and firing most cluster bombs during the final days of its invasion. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz says he gave "explicit" orders not to fire into populated areas. Critics have called for an independent investigation but Halutz has appointed an Israeli Major General to lead the probe.

Oh, that should get to the bottom of things, right? The IDF investigates itself. Yeah, I'm sure that Israel will never, ever do this sort of thing again. :rolleyes:

But even tho Israel has made its mistakes, the good works of Israel will be acknowledged by the generations to come...

Lebanon Residents Complain of Slow Aid Process
Meanwhile, residents of many Lebanese villages targeted during the invasion are complaining they’re just starting to receive government aid to rebuild.

Mustafa Alawiyeh, head of the local council in the village Maroun al-Ras: "We just started digging up the rubble (in Maroun al-Ras) that was caused by the Israeli offensive on the village. People are in a a lot of trouble because winter is arriving and every house has been damaged or destroyed. People don't know what to do and are waiting for the government's help."

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

Mark Freeman
11-21-2006, 01:12 PM
It means instead of feverishly sending more aid and fawning for love, the West needs to start shrugging off the Arabs duplicity and holding them accountable. If Syria is supplying arms to Lebanon, let's bomb them.... they tend to understand that. They just laugh at diplomacy and "negotiations". When it starts costing, and only then, will these fairly primitive people start listening.

Now back to your favorite channels of US bashing and Israel blaming. ;)



All people who act unacceptably should be held accountable, no matter what their label. Arab, Israeli, Yank, European it seems to me when it comes to the middle east there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Accountability for the culprits? This is unlikely to happen :(

Why not just go the whole hog Mike, and nuke the whole region, sure a few primitive innocents will be lost, but then at least the 'civilised world' can put away it's big bombs and carry on in peaceful democratic capitalist bliss. Oops, I forgot, there may be some malcontents in south east asia, might as well put in a pre-emptive on them, as I doubt that they would be lulled into apathy, by the 'clearing out'. ;)

Bomb the crap out of Syria? Isn't the Bush / Blair camp talking about working with them to help out with Iraq? I seems to me, bombing someone you are asking for help is a little 'bad mannered'. Not calculated to move towards peace in the immediate future, eh?

I'm currently watching Channel 4 not known for its bias, at the same time researching my great grandfathers Jewish faith ( a refugee from Russia ) ;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
11-21-2006, 01:33 PM
All people who act unacceptably should be held accountable, no matter what their label. Arab, Israeli, Yank, European it seems to me when it comes to the middle east there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Sure, since there are no guilty parties, let's do follow the Europeans lead and do just like they did prior to World War II... let's do nothing until it gets out of hand. Sort of Clintonesque.... let's lob a few missiles at some empty huts and give them more aid. Surely they'll all go away. If they get emboldened and do more and more, fine... there's plenty of blame to spread around, so let's not hurt their feelings.

Oddly, given the constant anti-war propaganda (notice how there were zero anti-war demonstrations in the US when Clinton started a war against a country that never did anything to us and which didn't have the blessings of the UN?), this is actually beginning to be a very good re-make of World War III. I can guarantee that the US population are now so anti-European and tired of carrying the NATO load.. and the other half "anti-war"... that there would again be a reluctance to do anything in defence of Europe. So hey.... you guys are winning the PR war. Anti-war it is. Isolationism is setting in. There's plenty of blame to spread around, so let's not blame anyone, shall we? :)

Mike

Mark Freeman
11-21-2006, 03:00 PM
There's plenty of blame to spread around, so let's not blame anyone, shall we? :)

Mike

No that would be daft wouldn't it?

as for:[QUOTE] this is actually beginning to be a very good re-make of World War III.]

did I miss something? ;)

regards,

Mark

Michael Varin
11-21-2006, 08:20 PM
I can guarantee that the US population are now so anti-European and tired of carrying the NATO load.. and the other half "anti-war"... that there would again be a reluctance to do anything in defence of Europe. So hey.... you guys are winning the PR war. Anti-war it is. Isolationism is setting in. There's plenty of blame to spread around, so let's not blame anyone, shall we?
It's less about blaming and more about accepting responsibility. Western countries (especially the US) have been meddling in the Middle East for a long time, but no one seems to be able to look back more than ten years, and if they do they don't relate what happened then with what's happening now. This isn't about exclusively blaming the US, but we need to recognize our role and change ourselves instead of trying to force others to bend to our will.
As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts. The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.
That was an excerpt from a good article on this subject. You can find the entire article here (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1). I encourage everyone to read it, although it is fairly long. Funny thing is it was written in 1991, we were at war in Iraq and Bush was president. Sound familiar?!

The point is our interventionist foreign policy has probably caused more harm than good. It can be effectively argued that British and US participation in WWI created Hitler (and led to Communism in Russia), which caused WWII (~40 million civilian casualties), ultimately giving Stalin greater power leading to the Cold War, Communist China, Viet Nam, and contributed to our problems in the Middle East. This is not to say that if we were non-interventionist there would be no problems in the world, but the record of governments in the 20th century was pretty poor.

Michael

Mike Sigman
11-21-2006, 08:43 PM
It's less about blaming and more about accepting responsibility. Western countries (especially the US) have been meddling in the Middle East for a long time, but no one seems to be able to look back more than ten years, and if they do they don't relate what happened then with what's happening now.
How far do you want to realistically look back? World War I do it? The Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in WWI. Ever hear of the Armenian Genocide? Ever read about the Arab attacks on the Jews prior to World War II? How about when the Arabs, during World War II sent an envoy to Hitler and encouraged him to kill more Jews? I'm sure you would like to find some excuse or mitigating factor for each of the many Muslim attacks against Jews, Hindus, westerners, etc., but there are so very, very many. At some point in time, even the apologists have to get off of that horse and admit that the Arabs need to clean up their act and if they don't, something drastic needs to be done. Go tell your story in Darfur.

Mike Sigman

Guilty Spark
11-21-2006, 09:20 PM
Dumb this down for me.
How I see it, there are two houses on a street.
One house (Palastine) is full of people. SOME of those people are starting crao with the neighbours at the other house (Israel).
Sometimes they throw stuff over the fense. Sometimes they sneak into the house to cause trouble.

This naturally pisses off the other house. They call the palastine house and continously sayhey stop that crap we're starting to get pissed off here.
The House P then says HEY it's not our fault. It's just some of the people in the house who are causing trouble.
House I is pissed off because it doesnt seem like the people running house P are doing enough to stop some of the people inside it from screwing with them.
House I says well if you don't stop them then *we'll* stop them because we're tired of getting screwed with.
House I takes it upon themselves to stop the trouble makers in house P. House P accuses house I of trying to hurt all of them.

I know that may sound a little silly but is that basically it in laymans terms?

Michael Varin
11-21-2006, 10:46 PM
I'm sure you would like to find some excuse or mitigating factor for each of the many Muslim attacks against Jews, Hindus, westerners, etc.
I don't remember defending or excusing Muslims for anything.

Go tell your story in Darfur.
I don't know why you would mention Darfur, because Sudan is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Sudan was colonized by the British and Egyptians, and has been in an almost constant state of civil war since it's independence in the 50s. Like most African countries, Sudan's borders are arbitrary and divide tribes who share similar ethnicities and languages, and group others together that have nothing in common accept dislike. And as far as I know, most of the violence in Darfur is Muslim-on-Muslim.

This is also a good argument for civilian firearm ownership, which is prohibited in so many countries, and makes genocide much easier.

We are not world police. People need to settle their own disputes, or call on neighboring nations for help. They understand the problem better than we do. If you or anyone else is so concerned, go there and fight, or help the refugees. As terrible as this situation may be, it doesn't threaten the security of our nation so how could anyone claim a rightful role for our government in it?

Michael

David Orange
11-21-2006, 10:50 PM
Dumb this down for me.
How I see it, there are two houses on a street.
One house (Palastine) is full of people. SOME of those people are starting crao with the neighbours at the other house (Israel).
Sometimes they throw stuff over the fense. Sometimes they sneak into the house to cause trouble.

Grant, try something more like this.

There are 1,000 houses in a neighborhood. They are all occupied by members of an extended family. Some of the members of the family jointly own one of the houses where they allow other members of the family to stay under various arrangements. The majority of the owners of that one house sell their shares to some non-family members of a different race. Now one of the 1000 houses in that neighborhood is occupied by "outsiders" of a different race. But the former occupants of that house don't accept the new owners, so the camp on the property. Some live in tents on the driveway, others live in the backyard shed. These people get guns from the occupants of the other 999 houses in the neighborhood and the government of a nearby city provides them money for food. Among them, several dress in KKK uniforms, promise to murder the owners of the house and in fact kill some of the owners. The owners fire back and kill some of the people who are camping on the land.

Now, if this were a black family in America, there's no question that the neighbors would be seen as evil racists. But since the neighborhood is the Arab world, the homeowners are Israelis and the squatters are Palestinian arabs, the world media takes a different tack.

In this case, they say, it's okay for the Arabs to hate the Jews and attempt to drive them out of that 1/10th of 1% of the houses in that neighborhood. In this case, they say, ethnic cleansing of the region is not an evil.

That's more what it's like.

Regards.

David

Amir Krause
11-22-2006, 02:17 AM
So, Luc... once again you turn a stupid mess that Arabs have gotten themselves into back into something to blame on Israel and the US. Why don't you scream at the Arabs?????????????????????? This silly game of always taking the complete incompetence of Middle Easterners and trying to make it the fault of someone else is ludicrous.

Notice how all the protests of Arabs are about the Pope or whoever they can blame, but never a peep about the primitive daily stupidities, murders, rapes, corruption, etc., of the Arab. Start now. Leave Israel and the US out of your posts. Look at the real problem and you'll find more people respect your integrity.

Mike Sigman


Mike

Where did you find Luc blaming Israel or the US in causing the conflict?
I read his post and see him putting the blame on other factions. The only mistake Luc makes is in expecting aid from outside rather then looking only on the ways he and his friends can influence the situation from the inside.


LUC
As the Jews have already learned, and payed dearly for it. As the Armenians learned. As the Kurds learned. As so many ethnic tribes in Africa learned. It is time you understand: The world rarely intervens. Committing real forces, finance and practical assistance is normally unheard of, unless the other countries believe they have overwhelming interests. And then, the intervention would be based on those interests, not on the good of the locals. The magnitude of the tragedy is not a factor, all the above mentioned cases were genocides, yet the world refused to act.
In fact, Democracies find even foreign intervention for their own interests to be problematic, Democracies are by nature hesitant, and the population is not very supportive of risking lives for the others, look at some of the above posts and see the mood in this regard. Dictatorships intervene much more easily, but if one does not care for his own population, what will he think of the population at another place?


Even had the world been willing to act, and commit sufficient resources. It would rarely be efficient. Multiple nations would each act as they believe, and mix each nations interests and views. Placing such a blundering in a convoluted situation as most middle-east nations, with complex historical conflicts and issues and multiple volatile sensitive points, is as likely to cause more mayhem as it is to cause order. Only recently the US has prooven this in Iraq. And you don't wish Lebanon to become a second Iraq.

Israel has once made the mistake of intervining in Lebanon, as we know today, such intervention was one of the reasons for the Israeli invasion into Lebanon during the 80's. The idea to affect the Lebanese Govt. seemed very attractive to some at the time, has changed the invasion plans from a mere defensive act against Palestinian terror from Lebanon to a much larger scale, which later became semi-permanent and it took a decade and a half for Israel to withraw. I do not think you wish for this type of support once more. And I can only hope the Israeli Govt. has learned some lesson from this experience and will not try it a second time.

You are asking others to support Lebanon in remaining democratic. I think the goal you present is worthy. Yet I have yet to see you proposing realistic ways for such support.
Further, I wish to urge you and your friends to initiate your own actions, and perhaps even get back to Lebanon and act from there! You can not expect others to assist, you should do it yourselves first.

Amir

Amir Krause
11-22-2006, 03:41 AM
Dumb this down for me.
How I see it, there are two houses on a street.
One house (Palastine) is full of people. SOME of those people are starting crao with the neighbours at the other house (Israel).
Sometimes they throw stuff over the fense. Sometimes they sneak into the house to cause trouble.

This naturally pisses off the other house. They call the palastine house and continously sayhey stop that crap we're starting to get pissed off here.
The House P then says HEY it's not our fault. It's just some of the people in the house who are causing trouble.
House I is pissed off because it doesnt seem like the people running house P are doing enough to stop some of the people inside it from screwing with them.
House I says well if you don't stop them then *we'll* stop them because we're tired of getting screwed with.
House I takes it upon themselves to stop the trouble makers in house P. House P accuses house I of trying to hurt all of them.

I know that may sound a little silly but is that basically it in laymans terms?

Grant

Your description makes all the members of I saints, reality never works this way. Some I fmaily members are zealots who continously try to lit the fire, most I family rejects them, but some are captivated by them and the I family leadership is often too tolerant too punish them harshly.

It ignores the P family concept of owning the whole house and being invaded by strangers. Being robed of their place.

It also ignores the connection between the P members and the other Arab nations to the point it is difficult to talk of a distinct P family from before 48/67...

I tried to start writning the whole story, but it takes way too long (the 3rd page is late 80s ...). I doubt I will ever finish.



This is the main thing I actually agreed with Neal about - reality is forever more complex.



Amir

Steve Mullen
11-22-2006, 05:42 AM
Mike you mention to....wel prettym uch everyone, that we should maybe look at what tha Arabs have done wrong, and "scresm" at them. Whilst all the time you are blaming every major conflict since WW1 on everyone apart from the US. My problem isn't with what you think the problem in the middle east is, it's that you need to look at what you are telling other people, no one is blameless. Try looking at what the US have done to screw the world up.

Mike Sigman
11-22-2006, 01:23 PM
Try looking at what the US have done to screw the world up.Feel better after a little America Bashing, Steve? Now show me in any past post where you have blamed the Arabs (who comprise 9 of the 10 worst terrorist groups in the world) as much as you blame the US.

If it's so bad.... have you thought about going somewhere "better"?

Mike

Steve Mullen
11-22-2006, 01:47 PM
I dont think i have bashed the US in my posts, I have only ever done it in reply to the UK bashing you are doing, and what do you mean by go somewhere better? if you are referring to this board then you can go whistle, if you refer to where i live, i think you'll find that im all for the UK.

I think the problems in the middle east are caused, for the most part, by the people in the middle east, yeah the UK and US may have contributed, but they Middle Eastern states are perpetuating.

Mike Sigman
11-22-2006, 01:56 PM
I dont think i have bashed the US in my posts, I have only ever done it in reply to the UK bashing you are doing, Weird, isn't it? The amount of US bashing on this forum, yet someone is appalled at the idea that "bashing" the UK could ever happen.

Sort of like a friend of mine who recently didn't catch me pulling his leg when I started applying the same uncontrolled hatred he has for Bust et al toward Democrats and at countries other than the US. Name-calling seems to be a one-way thing.... and the level of fanaticism by libs is unprecedented. Even Hillary was shocked when they started after her at one speech she gave, because she had voted for the war.

Maybe if you US bashers, Bush haters, etc., could take as well as you give?

Mike

Mark Uttech
11-22-2006, 06:15 PM
what is an "arab?" that's the first question

In gassho

Mark

Luc X Saroufim
11-23-2006, 11:38 AM
: The world rarely intervens.

Amir,

you didn't just tell me that, did you. i'm sure you don't mean that. i'm sure you know that 3 generations of Lebanese has experienced some sort of foreign intervention at one point in their lives ;)

oh wait, you mean the world rarely *helps?* that i believe. why would Israel, US, Syria, and now Iran, enter Lebanon if they weren't trying to destroy it?

if the West really cared, they would've done something by now. all i'm calling for is for the US to put their "support" into some sort of action, and for Israel to start caring about the stability of its only peaceful neighbor

seriously Amir, Egypt is neutral and won't help Israel. Syria supports the destruction of Israel, and so does Iran. Hezbollah is right next door in the South. this is all very good reason for Israel to arm itself and act accordingly.

but for Pete's sake, Siniora is an economist! he cares more about Lebanon's economy and rebuilding than "divine victories" and all that shi'ite bullshit. why, out of all the people they could have weakened, did Israel weaken *him*?

Mark Freeman
11-23-2006, 11:47 AM
what is an "arab?" that's the first question

In gassho

Mark

Someone from Arabia? ;) good question though, I've never been clear on what defines the group. Definitely not a distinct race as far as I am aware. I'm sure one of the arab aikidoka here will clear up any misunderstanding.

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
11-23-2006, 11:52 AM
Someone from Arabia? ;) good question though, I've never been clear on what defines the group. Definitely not a distinct race as far as I am aware. I had to bite my tongue not to say the obvious, too. I assumed the question was written during the cocktail hour. ;)

Actually, "Arabs" tend to be people from the Arabian Peninsula and, IIRC, they are usually designated as deriving from Berber stock. Mohammed, once he had won in his uprising on the Arabian Peninsula, killed all Jews and Christians on the peninsula, BTW.

FWIW

Mike

Neil Mick
11-23-2006, 03:52 PM
Dumb this down for me.
How I see it, there are two houses on a street.
One house (Palastine) is full of people. SOME of those people are starting crao with the neighbours at the other house (Israel).
Sometimes they throw stuff over the fense.

A fence built on Palestinian lands, sometimes over bulldozed houses, and businesses, cutting people off from their work, their farms, their dojo's.

Sometimes they sneak into the house to cause trouble.

Sometimes the soldiers of the I family make little "visits" over to the P family. When they do, they cause all manner of trouble, and pain.

This naturally pisses off the other house. They call the palastine house and continously sayhey stop that crap we're starting to get pissed off here.
The House P then says HEY it's not our fault. It's just some of the people in the house who are causing trouble.
House I is pissed off because it doesnt seem like the people running house P are doing enough to stop some of the people inside it from screwing with them.

Cut off from water, access to the outside world (70% of House P's economy is tied to House I) and often, to other parts of their own house, House P asks for help from the Great House U From Across the Ocean. House U likes to pretend that it's an "honest broker" for House P and House I, but everyone on the block knows that House U looks at House I as some sort of extension, of its own House.

And so, year after year, nothing gets resolved, and the block blames the leaders of House P, mostly.

House I says well if you don't stop them then *we'll* stop them because we're tired of getting screwed with.
House I takes it upon themselves to stop the trouble makers in house P. House P accuses house I of trying to hurt all of them.

Looking at the sheer number of civilians killed in House P vs. House I shows the truth of this statement.

I know that may sound a little silly but is that basically it in laymans terms?

It's not silly at all...simplistic, maybe...but a good starting metaphor from which to build..


This is the main thing I actually agreed with Neal about - reality is forever more complex.

Amir

Yes, agreed. I'm sure that there's a lot more to the puzzle.

You know, I'm sorry that you chose not to answer the question about "Breaking the Silence..." if there IS no "silence" about the effects of the Occupation (upon Israeli's)...then why did he name his group "Breaking the Silence?"

If I were living in Israel...I'd certainly give this notion some thought...ridicule or no.

Neil Mick
11-23-2006, 04:29 PM
what is an "arab?" that's the first question

In gassho

Mark

And an excellent question it is...one not carefully considered, here.

Since I am not an Arab...pls consider this a rough statement, which needs more refinement.

Being an "Arab" is not, apparently: a racial trait...more cultural, like being an American.

The most concise definitions I found (of all places) in an Army training manual (go figure) :crazy:

FACTSHEETS
TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2
ARAB CULTURAL AWARENESS:
58 FACTSHEETS (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/arabculture.pdf)


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF ARAB WORLD
�� 22 countries.
�� Location of several world religions.
�� Multitude of ethnic and linguistic groups.
�� Close to 60% of earth's oil reserves are at or near
the Arabian Peninsula.
�� Saudi Arabia possesses the world's largest
reserves of oil.

Heh...even the Army spells it out right away...in contrast to the naysaying of certain Executives...it's about the oil. :freaky:


WHAT IS AN ARAB?
�� Over 200 million Arabs worldwide.
�� To be an Arab, is not to come from a particular race or
lineage.
�� To be an Arab, like an American, is a cultural trait
rather than racial.
�� The Arab world includes Muslims, Christians and Jews.
�� Any person who adopts the Arabic language is typically
called an Arab.
�� Arabic is the official and the original language of the
Qur'an, the Islamic holy book.

And, for those who seem to think Arab's are personifications of eveel...ahem.

COMMOM MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ARABS
• All Arabs are Muslims, and all Muslims are Arab.
o Arabs are religiously diverse group --
significant numbers of Arab Christians in
Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and
Iraq. Arabs make up between 15-18% of the
Muslim world.
• The Arab world is backwards and uncivilized.
o Actually represents a highly developed culture
and civilization where modern cities mingle
with ancient ones.
• The Arab world is one big desert.
o Truly geographically complex and diverse.
• Stereotypes of Arab males:
o All are "oil-rich Sheiks". As in the West, there
are economically diverse segments of the
population.
o Mad dictators. Various types of political
systems in Arab world.
o Terrorists. Overwhelming majority are law
abiding citizens with families and a wide
variety of occupations.
• Stereotypes of Arab women:
o All are oppressed by men. Not true.
o All are veiled. According to Islam women are
supposed to wear veils. In some countries, like
Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, it is no imposed
upon them and women are free to choose
whether to wear veils. However, in other
places, all women, even non-Muslims, wear
veils out of fear of mistreatment by fanatics or
those who pretend to be guardians of Islam.

If this is the sum of what the Army teaches its soldiers (I've heard that they give about a 2-hr talk, before they ship you off with a salute, a quickly scrawled list of a half-dozen Arab words), then I'd say that they have a LONG way to go, in developing cultural awareness training for its soldiers. :hypno:

But again, it's a start.

I'm sure one of the arab aikidoka here will clear up any misunderstanding.

regards,

Mark

Yes, would one of the Arab Aikidoka in the reading audience pls fill in any holes I missed (for instance: I've read that some tribes think that ONLY ppl with lineages from the Arabian Peninsula are "true" Arabs...true, or nonsense?) .

Michael Varin
11-24-2006, 02:24 AM
I don't think the term Arab can be easily pinned down with one factor . . . of course I'm far from an expert. I believe it's partially genetic (who your ancestors are . . . I don't think Arabs come from Berbers, because Arabs invaded North Africa), partially geographic (from Syria to tip of Arabian Peninsula and maybe North Africa), and partially linguistic (speak Arabic). Some individuals choose to favor one of these categories over the others (for instance, I don't think Kurds ever consider themselves Arab). It is not synonymous with Muslim. That's the way I currently understand it. Like I said I'm no expert and I'm not an Arab.

I know a guy from Iran (interestingly he's a pro-Bush, republican, police officer); he says he's Persian and is not pleased when people call him an Arab.

Michael

Amir Krause
11-24-2006, 10:44 AM
Amir,

you didn't just tell me that, did you. i'm sure you don't mean that. i'm sure you know that 3 generations of Lebanese has experienced some sort of foreign intervention at one point in their lives ;)

oh wait, you mean the world rarely *helps?* that i believe. why would Israel, US, Syria, and now Iran, enter Lebanon if they weren't trying to destroy it?

if the West really cared, they would've done something by now. all i'm calling for is for the US to put their "support" into some sort of action, and for Israel to start caring about the stability of its only peaceful neighbor

seriously Amir, Egypt is neutral and won't help Israel. Syria supports the destruction of Israel, and so does Iran. Hezbollah is right next door in the South. this is all very good reason for Israel to arm itself and act accordingly.

but for Pete's sake, Siniora is an economist! he cares more about Lebanon's economy and rebuilding than "divine victories" and all that shi'ite bullshit. why, out of all the people they could have weakened, did Israel weaken *him*?

Luc

You understood me correctly, as I tried to explain, nearby countries may act in accordance to their own interests, but world-wide intervention and help against an active internal war is very rare and always late and even when it does happen, it brings with it much sorrow and errors (see Kosovo).

I agree with you that Israel has interest in a peaceful democratic and prospering Lebanon, and letting it fall into Syrian or Shiai would be a mistake. Actually, in my eyes, your analysis is optimistic, for example: Egypt is at peace with Israel, but according to many reports, even most of its intellectuals, have never accepted this peace, not to speak of the poorer masses. so far we passed one regime change but I fear what will happen in the next one, or if an Islamic revolution will take place (Egyptian regime constantly fights against the Muslim brothers)...

I Suspect we still disagree about the last war, as I believe Israel had the right to expect the Lebanese people and government to understand attacks on Israel inside its borders are unacceptable, and any internal power that acts in this manner has to be pursued by the Lebanese and fear of internal turmoil is not a reason for inaction. The Lebanese Govt. was publicly on the wrong side prior to this war.
It seems this recent war has made many Lebanese to understand this obligation, which every country has towards its neighbors. I wish there was some way Israel could assist the current Lebanese Govt. and strengthen it. Personally, I doubt there is. As you well know any public declaration of support from Israel or the US are likely to actually work against you.
If you can think of a realistic way, please do write it down here (messages also acceptable). If it makes sense, we could try and turn this into some letter to news-papers (politicians read those) or try to find some other way...

Hope your family is well. And asking you to call your friends into action.[B]Lebanon needs you now,its citizens, so be brave and act to make a peace full change[\B]

Amir

Amir Krause
11-24-2006, 11:04 AM
You know, I'm sorry that you chose not to answer the question about "Breaking the Silence..." if there IS no "silence" about the effects of the Occupation (upon Israeli's)...then why did he name his group "Breaking the Silence?"

If I were living in Israel...I'd certainly give this notion some thought...ridicule or no.

Neal

Actually, I do have an answer, and most Israelis do know it too. I still remember the group leaders speaking on TV when it was introduced.

But, as I wrote previously, it seems I can have an interesting dialog with Luc, and while we disagree on much, and our countries are in a semi-state of war, our discussions contain much more respect for each other, and willingness to understand and listen. I also remember participating in loaded arguments in E-budo political section, the disagreements remained significant, but respect was all around, towards every participant

For some reason, whenever I discuss something with you, I find a different approach, one I do not like. My sensei often told me, with regard to posting about MA in the net, that some fights do not gain one Honor, regardless of victory. I cam to understand this same principle apples here.
I already wondered once, how can you expect nations to stay in peace and control, faced with dead and panicked citizens and some outside attack. You protest for keeping the honor of people despite real threats. Yet, posting here in such threads, your own reaction is very aggressive and disrespectful to others. You are not threatened physically in this situation, yet those who are, or have loved ones in the region, behave in a much more contained and respectful manner towards all.


Until you convince me you wish to have a discussion, and are willing to really listen and participate in a respectful manner. I find no reason to enter some ego bantering or something similar. It can only drag me to behave the same way, and this is a thing I wish to aviod.
Until then, there are enough others here with which a serious and interesting discussion is possible.



Amir

Amir Krause
11-24-2006, 11:31 AM
I know a guy from Iran (interestingly he's a pro-Bush, republican, police officer); he says he's Persian and is not pleased when people call him an Arab.

Michael

As far as I know Arabs are an ethnic group of shematic people. Associated with emerging from Arabia (the Arab peninsula).
A common misconceptions is to think all Muslims are Arabs, it simply isn't true and your Iranian friend was rightfuly angry at you for placing him in the wrong ethnic group,Iraninan are Persians, and not Arabs.

In fact, this has been a supporting reason for alliance between the Shah Iran and Israel in the 70s'...


Amir

Luc X Saroufim
11-24-2006, 12:54 PM
Amir,

i enjoy your responses and counter arguments very much. i might sound hostile at times but i'm glad you understand where i'm coming from.

in the end, just the fact that my words are not falling on deaf ears is enough.

write more later.

Neil Mick
11-24-2006, 04:18 PM
Neal

Yet, posting here in such threads, your own reaction is very aggressive and disrespectful to others. You are not threatened physically in this situation, yet those who are, or have loved ones in the region, behave in a much more contained and respectful manner towards all.


Until you convince me you wish to have a discussion, and are willing to really listen and participate in a respectful manner. I find no reason to enter some ego bantering or something similar. It can only drag me to behave the same way, and this is a thing I wish to aviod.
Until then, there are enough others here with which a serious and interesting discussion is possible.

Thank you for your response, Amir. Your question of etiquette on my part, begs a response.

If I was disrespectful to you, I apologize. But, I think we need to clear up a few things, right now.

1) Going by your last post, you're under the mistaken impression that I use "ridicule" to make my point.

IMO, you confuse "ridicule," with "absurdity."

But try (for a second) to look at it from my perspective. The topic is the aftermath of the illegal war on Lebanon. Yet, almost no one here has even BEEN to Lebanon (save, of course, Luc). Questions about the nature of Islam and Arabs are posed by non-Arabs and people who have had little occasion to meet Arabs.

Aspersions are cast down on Palestinian's and revisionist historical accounts are invoked as some sort of apologist reasoning for the current sorry state of affairs, garbed in pseudo-academic lingo...yet, no one (to my knowledge, or by their admission) here has even been to Palestine, or tried to go their (save, yours truly).

The daily reports of casual brutality of the IDF is cast aside, in favor of blaming guerrilla organizations and Arab leaders, for all the woes of the Middle East. Your own veep wants to drown Arabs, yet this seems less important than the ravings of the President of Iran, a man who speaks from an office with no actual power.

You, yourself, seem to enjoy the "absurdity" game. You come on to my hypothetical of the WW3 thread like gangbusters, tearing into it with an impressive knowledge of Israeli history, yet you leave absent in your long critique any mention of historical shenanigans on the part of Israel, at the time.

And you wonder why I use "absurdity" as a tone, for argument???

Please. The whole thread is a literal paean, an ode, to absurdity. But, this does not mean that I cannot conduct an absurd argument without a measure of respect. I have endeavored to avoid personal remarks.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended, but I've always played by the simple rule of "hate the game, not the player." And you, my friend, seem to like your game very much, IMO...but balk when it's time to own up to the holes in your argument.

Now, if you find THAT offensive, well...I suppose you're right. We WOULD be better off, not responding to each other's posts.

Michael Varin
11-25-2006, 02:37 AM
Amir,

For the record, I never called my Iranian friend Arab. He told me it's something he runs into every so often and doesn't like it. I was just trying to find something from my personal experience to illustrate that not everyone from the Middle East or all Muslims are Arab, but thanks for the reply.

Now that that's cleared up, back to the discussion.

Michael

Guilty Spark
11-26-2006, 07:00 PM
David, Amir, thanks for giving me a better perspective on the whole house example.

Luc X Saroufim
11-27-2006, 08:06 AM
many Christian Lebanese don't like when you call them Arabs. i personally don't care, but some facts about Lebanese Christians:

- they consider Lebanon the "eastern edge of the West" as opposed to "western edge of the east". in other words, don't affiliate us with most Arab nations in the Middle East, because we value Western ideals.

- there is a difference between Lebanese and Arabic. i told my Lebanese friend, in our native language, that i speak arabic, and he said: "no, you speak Lebanese"

- we don't want muslim leadership, no matter what the cost. even when Israel comes in and does major damage, we would rather blame the conflict on HA and Syria. we're still not happy with what Israel does, but after discussing Lebanese politics this Thanksgiving with my entire family, only I brought up Israel. to my family from the old world, Israel is an afterthought.

keep in mind this is only the viewpoint of Lebanese Christians. Lebanese Shi'ites would like nothing better than to destroy Israel. Lebanese Sunni's are torn: some are pro-syrian, some are not. Druze are mostly anti-syrian, but you'll find exceptions. even General Aoun, longtime a Christian general, stabbed us in the back and is pro-syrian.

with this much diversity, maybe you can understand why it's so hard to disarm HA, and the type of damage that war can do to this country. I am very proud of my country that we have held it together so far, but being a Christian, I am not happy with the Syrians moving in and the US and Israel starting to ally with them.

Israel and the US are trying to channel through Syria in order to restore order in Iraq. if they work out some sort of agreement, my guess is that they're going to let Syria waltz right in. unacceptable.

edit: one more thing; don't ever mistake Hezbollah ideals for Lebanese ones ;)

Neil Mick
11-30-2006, 06:37 PM
many Christian Lebanese don't like when you call them Arabs. i personally don't care, but some facts about Lebanese Christians:

- they consider Lebanon the "eastern edge of the West" as opposed to "western edge of the east". in other words, don't affiliate us with most Arab nations in the Middle East, because we value Western ideals.

- there is a difference between Lebanese and Arabic. i told my Lebanese friend, in our native language, that i speak arabic, and he said: "no, you speak Lebanese"

Luc,

Do you mean that the term "Christian Arab" is an oxymoron? Or, is it just that Lebanese Christians (as opposed to Syrian Christians, or Jordanian Christians) alone do not consider themselves Arabs?

Taliesin
12-01-2006, 09:18 AM
Ahwadi Arabs consider themselves to be a persecuted minority in Iran - They feel persecuted by the Persians

So it makes the point that just because we lump a lot of people together under one heading does not make them all the same.

You can Lump - France and USA together as Westerners

or the UK and Germany as Europeans.

You can even call people from South of the Mason-Dixon Line 'Yanks'.

It doesn't follow that all are the same.

Luc X Saroufim
12-10-2006, 06:07 AM
Luc,

Do you mean that the term "Christian Arab" is an oxymoron? Or, is it just that Lebanese Christians (as opposed to Syrian Christians, or Jordanian Christians) alone do not consider themselves Arabs?

Lebanese Christians alone, myself included. i joke about it, but i consider Lebanese culture and Arabic culture two different things. go to my old neighborhood in Beirut and you will think the same.

Neil Mick
12-10-2006, 10:24 AM
go to my old neighborhood in Beirut and you will think the same.

Someday, I hope I can do that. :cool:

Mark Freeman
12-10-2006, 10:55 AM
go to my old neighborhood in Beirut and you will think the same.

Hi guys,

I wonder if it is still how you remember it Luc? I hope so.
I used to work for british airways along time ago, and my flight crew friends used to say that Beirut was one of the best places in the world to visit, of course that was before the first round of destruction let alone the second.
It is such a shame that war destroys in moments what often takes generations to build :(

Peace to all in this troubled time

Mark

Luc X Saroufim
12-10-2006, 02:29 PM
I wonder if it is still how you remember it Luc?


yes. Beirut is rebuilt from the first set of wars, and Israel only bombed the southern part this summer, where it's not too historical. besides, most of my family is still there.

Mike Sigman
12-10-2006, 07:51 PM
But try (for a second) to look at it from my perspective. The topic is the aftermath of the illegal war on Lebanon. The 2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers have still not been returned yet. Hezbollah is re-arming and UNIFIL is *ONLY* complaining about Israel's overflights for intelligence.


Right now, no Arab country has ever lived up fully to their legal agreements and many are still officially at war with Israel. What is this continued noise about "bad ole Israel" and "Nasty Ole US of A". It's the same BS, over and over. Where has Luc complained about the 2 Israeli soldiers, may I ask?


Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
12-11-2006, 07:23 AM
Where has Luc complained about the 2 Israeli soldiers, may I ask?

well, starting mid-July, i was:

1) Worried that my family would be killed

then, when the fighting ended, i was:

2) Worried that Israeli air and sea blockades would not allow me to visit my family when I got married.

then, when they lifted the blockade, i was:

3) Worried that a significantly strengthened Lezzbollah would give Iran and Syria free reign over Lebanon.

all the while, being in shock and awe that despite being a peaceful nation, we once again have the reputation of being war hungry barbarians, even if we did none of the shooting.

it was never about the two soldiers, Mike. it wasn't Helen of Troy that moved 1000 ships either. in both cases, it was pure politics.

Mike Sigman
12-11-2006, 07:47 AM
So basically, Luc.... reading your post... it is the penultimate Middle Eastern "worry about me and mine and to hell with those soldiers". In your opinion, Israel should just not react when its country is invaded and its citizens kidnapped by primitive, depraved tribes-people who have a religion that promotes the killing of Jews. That seems to be what it boils down to.

You don't seem to be concerned that "Lebanese" cannot keep their word, are dishonorable, and support murder of Israelis, etc. All you think about is yourself, if you list of concerns is accurate.

Your rants are *still* totally focused at Israel, with only occasional lip-service to truth or ethics. Now that you can see not even a good arguing point about the kidnapped soldiers, you're quite willing to dismiss them as something in the past like Helen of Troy. Perhaps if it was your family that was kidnapped, it would get your attention? Your concern for others seems to stop at this tribal level for some reason. Why not start raising screams about the Lebanese not releasing those soldiers??

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
12-11-2006, 08:00 AM
In your opinion, Israel should just not react when its country is invaded and its citizens kidnapped by primitive, depraved tribes-people who have a religion that promotes the killing of Jews. That seems to be what it boils down to.

Israel does react, but doesn't start a war over it. this time it did. that's all i'm saying.


All you think about is yourself, if you list of concerns is accurate.

my country has seen 16 years of blood and sweat wiped out in the blink of an eye, and my grandchildren will be born by the time it recovers economically from this. meanwhile, Iran and Syria are pounding on our back door. am i supposed to cry for somebody else?



Your rants are *still* totally focused at Israel, with only occasional lip-service to truth or ethics.

i'm glad you called them rants, because that's all they are. i believe i'm entitled to them after what's happened, what is happening, and what seems like a dim future for Lebanon.

you still don't understand, Mike: we had hope. lots and lots of hope.

Neil Mick
12-11-2006, 11:28 AM
Israel does react, but doesn't start a war over it. this time it did. that's all i'm saying.

Yes. And, I'm sure that while those of us who are such good citizens of the world are wringing their hands over the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers...surely, they can remember the names of the six Palestinian children who were killed this last June, while picnicking on the beach....right?

Uh huh. evileyes

my country has seen 16 years of blood and sweat wiped out in the blink of an eye, and my grandchildren will be born by the time it recovers economically from this. meanwhile, Iran and Syria are pounding on our back door. am i supposed to cry for somebody else?

Yes, Luc: you're supposed to forget it all and stand up and salute, whenever someone mentions the US interests. United States, uber alles. :freaky:

i'm glad you called them rants, because that's all they are. i believe i'm entitled to them after what's happened, what is happening, and what seems like a dim future for Lebanon.

you still don't understand, Mike: we had hope. lots and lots of hope.

And, he never will understand, either. Not until it either happens to HIS neighborhood, HIS city; or he actually visits a nation beset upon by Israeli/US "justice." :disgust:

Mike Sigman
12-11-2006, 11:36 AM
And, he never will understand, either. Not until it either happens to HIS neighborhood, HIS city; or he actually visits a nation beset upon by Israeli/US "justice." :disgust:Oh, I think you lotus-eaters living off the fat of America on the West Coast will probably taste what Israel tastes daily from the Arabs, far sooner than you'll ever seen any effects from the Jooooos, Neil. Those nasty old Jooooos. You hates 'em and hates 'em... your passion against them reminds me of the late 1930's. Time to finish what the "socialists-turned-fascists" couldn't complete, eh?

Mike

Cady Goldfield
12-11-2006, 03:54 PM
Israel, as always, is fighting for its survival. Looks like it's time to remind Mr. Mick, again, how Jews are treated in the Arab world. Anyone who feels no enmity toward Jews would be upset and concerned about the hatred cultivated against Jews at the behest and design of Arab governments:

http://www.middleeast.org/forum/fb-public/1/4240.shtml

Luc X Saroufim
12-12-2006, 06:05 AM
Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, as always, are fighting for their survival

fixed that for you. the Middle East is one, big mess. to say there is only one victim is just ridiculous.

just don't confuse someone's love for one country with hatred for another country. from a completely neutral point of view (GO LEBANON), i have seen what war does to my country, and i don't want to see any more.

Cady Goldfield
12-12-2006, 07:32 AM
Um, I'll thank you not to change a quote and attribute it to me.

Luc, it's horrible when civilians are killed and have their homes destroyed...anywhere. When terrorist groups such as Hezbollah use civilians as human shields, and incite attacks so that they can "let the world see that innocent civilians are being killed," it's even more horrific. Yes, everyone wants to survive, but when factions let blind hatred and fanaticism prevent them from coming to the negotiating table, I have to wonder why the civilians don't turn on those very factions who are causing violence to rain down on them? Israel is subject ot the criticism of its own citizens. Being a democracy, that is as it should be. Where is the criticism and sanctioning of terrorist groups by Arab civilians who are paying dearly for having their homes, schools, hospitals and communities used as bait and shielding?

Luc X Saroufim
12-12-2006, 08:44 AM
Um, I'll thank you not to change a quote and attribute it to me.

a technique used on another forum i venture, just to kid around. point taken, though.


Where is the criticism and sanctioning of terrorist groups by Arab civilians who are paying dearly for having their homes, schools, hospitals and communities used as bait and shielding?

most Sunni's, Christians, Druze, and Greek Orthodox are against Hezbollah in Lebanon. that's why the anti-Syrian faction (read: anti-Hezbollah) won in a landslide last year in *elections* that were held. i didn't want you to think Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East.

Neil Mick
12-12-2006, 10:39 AM
Israel, as always, is fighting for its survival.


Oh, really? Is the gov't in danger of forcibly being halted? Are troops marching within her borders?

Are the trains even being halted by a friggin' second? Any critical resources in danger of being destroyed?

Then, I guess that SOMEONE here is overestimating (yet again) the dangers to Israel. Funny, how a nation has been "fighting for its survival," for some 35 years. Funnier still, how the cries of "fighting for its survival," seem to emerge when that nation is guilty of the worst human rights violations.

But, Israel can do no wrong, so long as it is "fighting for its survival," right? :rolleyes:

Looks like it's time to remind Mr. Mick, again, how Jews are treated in the Arab world.

Looks like its time for Mr. Goldfield to bring up a non sequitor, again, of how Jews are treated in the Arab world. :rolleyes:

Anyone who feels no enmity toward Jews would be upset and concerned about the hatred cultivated against Jews at the behest and design of Arab governments.

Yes, Arab gov't's are mean, and often suck. They're corrupt and guilty of human rights violations, in many cases.

Not sure WHAT this has to do with Lebanon, the treatment of Palestinian's, or even the price of beans in Uzbekistan: but if it makes you happy, Cady: it makes ME happy. :freaky:

Israel is subject ot the criticism of its own citizens. Being a democracy, that is as it should be.

Where are the critiques of the human rights violations? Where are the bills in the Knesset over these violations being pushed thru into law? Where is the wide display of the Israeli press, critiquing the indefinite detention of thousands of Palestinian's?

Absent, that's where? Israel, "subject to criticism?" Maybe to a point, but...

And, as far as critique within Arab nations?

Where is the criticism and sanctioning of terrorist groups by Arab civilians who are paying dearly for having their homes, schools, hospitals and communities used as bait and shielding?

You might imagine that the critique of terrorist groups might be muted by those who are living, in their backyard. You might, if you stopped characterizing Arabs as cardboard villians, for just a second.

You might also try to find this critique...it's out there, but not in periodicals you like to read. You have to dig a little deeper...

Neil Mick
12-12-2006, 11:43 AM
And, speaking of active critiques...I just heard this on the news:

Student Protesters Interrupt Ahmadinejad Speech
In Iran, a group of students disrupted a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday. It marked the first major public protest against Ahmadinejad since he took office. The students screamed Death to the Dictator, set photographs of the president on fire and threw firecrackers at him. Ahmadinejad cut his speech short. As he left, students kicked at the car that carried him away. The president's guards did not remove the students or use force to stop the protests.

But, then there was this, that made me want to hurl...

Meanwhile Iran is hosting an international conference questioning whether the Holocaust occurred. Holocaust deniers from around the world are attending including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke who claimed that the gas chambers in which millions perished actually did not exist

:disgust:

No, Iran is certainly not a haven of forward thinking and free thought.

Jeremy Hulley
12-12-2006, 11:50 AM
In June 2004 my wife an I went to Dachau....walked through the gas chamber and past the ovens.

My skin crawls just thinking about it..

Mark Freeman
12-12-2006, 12:27 PM
Student Protesters Interrupt Ahmadinejad Speech
In Iran, a group of students disrupted a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday. It marked the first major public protest against Ahmadinejad since he took office. The students screamed Death to the Dictator, set photographs of the president on fire and threw firecrackers at him. Ahmadinejad cut his speech short. As he left, students kicked at the car that carried him away. The president's guards did not remove the students or use force to stop the protests.

Typical lefty liberal students, how dare they protest against the incumbent powers, what are they thinking of :rolleyes:

Just goes to show you can't tar everyone with the same brush ;)

regards,

Mark

Luc X Saroufim
12-12-2006, 02:55 PM
Just goes to show you can't tar everyone with the same brush ;)



i can say with a straight face that the Middle East (Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Palestine, etc.) is one of the most beautiful and historic areas of the world, full of the best people in the world, and led by some of the biggest tyrants the world has ever known.