I was unsure about Sharon, esp. about what I heard about those catholics in Lebanon who killed hundreds of arabs. But this could be good, Mr Card has shown us that Sharon is possibly making a good play here, it is a win-win situation.
quote: Analyzed one way, it's a no-lose proposition. Either the Palestinians will grow up and govern themselves sanely, no longer allowing Gaza to be a staging area for murderous attacks on Israel ... or they won't.
If they do maintain the peace, then Israel's trade was a good one. They would then have a sound basis for trading more land for peace on the West Bank.
But if -- as everyone expects -- Hamas and other murderers persist in using Gaza as a staging area for missile attacks and terrorist assaults against Israel, then Israel has proof that nothing they concede to the Palestinians will lead to any good end.
Amazing, this is absolutly true, I've never realized it since I didn't really think about it, so much stuff was happening in my own life. But from thinking about what Mr Card says it makes sense.
quote: It's a demonstration, then. And those pictures of weeping Israeli settlers being forced from their homes are every bit as good a propaganda tool for Israel as those poor suffering Palestinians have long been for the other side.......They needed to show how much pain was involved. How much it cost. How serious the Israeli government was about sacrificing for peace.
That's why Sharon took the enormous political risk of alienating his own core supporters by dismantling settlements. He's playing longball here, hitting for the fence instead of bunting.
You know I'm absolutly tired of all the propoganda I see about the "poor suffering" pallistinians. What about the Israeli's who die just because they're jewish or are living on land that was given to them/rightfully belongs to them? It's amazing how so many people seem to think about how the Pallistinians are some how the good guys.
Sharon has made in my opinion the right move, the only possible move, a move that while may risk a rook and lose a knight, will allow us to take the enemy's queen.
IP: Logged |
posted
You know, i don't think i'd conciously realised it till now, but i think that I have wholeheartedly agreed with everything OSC has ever posted in his reviews/worldwatch columns. Wow Posts: 10 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sharon is a genius. He is not only easing tensions, he is setting for for greater advancement because when there is no longer a tax on resources caused by defence and whatnot the people will become prosperous. Hurrah for Mr. Card
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, don't be naive. What OSC said about Sharon could make sense to someone who isn't really aware of the current state of affairs in Israel. But it makes no sense whatsoever in the real world.
Sharon has never been out for anyone but Sharon. He rode the settlement wave when it looked like an easy constituency to pick up. But he was never ideologically committed to it.
The expulsion of 9,000 Jews from their homes and the ceding of their land to terrorists was not a gambit. Even Sharon isn't dumb enough to think it would have any such result.
Ehud Barak once offered the Arabs virtually everything short of the keys to the Knesset, and Arafat walked away. The world hasn't cut Israel any slack because of that. I can't imagine why OSC would think this would be any different.
Sharon was about to be tried on criminal charges, which would have ended with him being in jail. He pulled this whole "disengagement" thing to get out of that, and it's worked so far.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I wasn't referring to your post, but to RunningBear's.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well this time i suspect that considering that A: arafat is not here anymore and B this seems to be a pretty well advertised event I should hope that this turns out well for Israel.
Besides they could alays retake Gaza.
IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Icarus, what I mean is that Sharon is making a very good decision in my opinion because when there is less fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians the Israelis will be free to work on projects other than beating the bejesus out of Palestine and defending themselves from Palestine. Sharon is not (in my opinion) doing this as a way to get ahead politically, he is doing this so that Palestine and Israel may be able to work together instead of against eachother. Or if not that, then appeasing the Palestinians, which will make them happy, and they wont go around blowing themselves up anymore.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Or if not that, then appeasing the Palestinians, which will make them happy, and they wont go around blowing themselves up anymore.
RunningBear, they don't commit acts of mayhem and murder because they're unhappy. They do it because they've been given reason to believe that doing so will win them the results they want.
Sharon just gave them ample reason to continue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Aha! But if they do continue they we have proof that there is nothing that will please them! And plays into Israel's hands even if not for Sharon's.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Aha! But if they do continue they we have proof that there is nothing that will please them! And plays into Israel's hands even if not for Sharon's.
I wish you were right, but there's nothing in anyone's experience to support it.
They're already claiming that we didn't give them all of Gaza. They're saying that nothing counts until they have all of the West Bank, including areas where Jewish towns existed up until the Arabs conquered them in 1948, and which we rebuilt in 1967. They're saying that even if they get all of that, it's not enough until they have the "right of return", which means the right to import 3 million Arabs into the area left of Israel after the West Bank is gone.
Their first reaction to the eviction of Jews from Gaza was to launch an attack against areas within the 1949 demarcation lines. The US response? Condi gets up and says that rendering 9,000 Jews homeless was a good start, but not nearly enough.
They've already started using the territory they've been given by Sharon to stage rocket attacks against Israeli towns. Where is the international outrage? Where is any sign of people going, "Hey, I guess the Arabs don't want peace after all?"
The answer is that people weren't stupid. They didn't actually think that this would do anything but whet the Arab taste for blood and conquest.
But look. You have two sides. One tries over and over to reach out. Is clearly willing to bend over backwards to reach some sort of accomodation. The other has never shown the slightest inclination to accept any accomodation other than complete victory for them.
Who do you deal with?
Well, in principle, you deal with the first party. They have a moral stance. The second party is a bunch of barbarians opposed to everything modern civilization values.
In practice, though, you deal with the second party. You push the first party into making further concessions even though you know it's just going to hurt them, because when it comes right down to it, you aren't interested in the welfare of either side. You just want things to settle down so that your petroleum importing keeps going ahead smoothly.
Pushing on the second party will not help you. You know they don't care, and you know that pushing them will only cause you problems in other arenas. And while you may feel bad for the first party, well hell, you weren't elected to serve the interests of Israel, however moral they may be. You were elected to serve the interests of America, and by damn, that's what you're going to do, even if it means screwing Israel.
In truth, that makes a lot of sense. It's one reason I'd never vote for a Jew running for president. Nor vice president. Not in a million years. It'd be nice if we never had a situation where it was necessary to choose between doing what's best for the Jews and what's best for America. And most American Jews will go through their lives never having to make such a choice. But the president is different. He would have to make such a choice. And the US president must put America first.
I can respect the position, but it doesn't change the basic fact that Card's essay was naive in the extreme, and that no one is going to change any of their positions just because the Arabs got Gaza and continue to be murderous beasts.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm, I didnt really think of that. you have a good point starLisa, but I have to hope that the move does stop the terrorist attacks, and I dont think that by staying where they were the Israelis could have improved the situation. But you never really know.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Wait, I just read your last statement. The Arabs are using the ceded territory to strike against Israeli towns?!?!
What The He**? This is ample reason to launch strikes against the rocket sites. Jeez.
Yeah. You'd think, right? That's my point, though. It isn't happening.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
As the gates to the Gaza Strip were closed and locked, marking the end of Israel's 38-year occupation, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel would implement a policty of zero tolerance against terrorism. ... Palestinians fired a Kassam rocket at Kiryat Malachi early Monday morning, just as Israel was completing its final withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. A second Kassam was fired at approximately noon.
Kassam Fired at Yad Mordechai 14:58 Sep 12, '05 / 8 Elul 5765 (IsraelNN.com) Arab terrorists from Gaza fired a Kassam rocket today at Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, south of Ashkelon. The Red Dawn warning system went into effect in the region, alerting residents to the incoming artillery; however, local police have been unable, as yet, to find the rocket's impact zone.
A previous rocket attack was launched at the same region last night, but security services assume that the Kassam fell in the Palestinian Authority-controlled area of northern Gaza.
Near Yad Mordechai is a tent city set up by former residents of Elei Sinai, in the Gaza region. The tent city has become similar to a traditional collective kibbutz, with a communal kitchen and dining area and tour of duty for community work. Yad Mordechai members have opened the kibbutz for the tent city residents to shower and socialize.
========================
Nothing changes. The abandonment of Gaza has had exactly the effect that it had to have: encouragement of terror and murder.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: however, local police have been unable, as yet, to find the rocket's impact zone
*blink* On one hand, I suppose I'm glad that it's hard to find. On the other hand, I'm rather surprised.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, all of Israel belongs to the Jews, including the West Bank and Gaza strip.
There is no such thing as a "palastinian race," they are just Arabs, like the people of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. They have the entire middle east to claim as home, let the Jews have the land that is theirs by right.
The Jews are a part of the Hebrew race and are unique, and the land of Israel has been their homeland since before Christianity or Islam were even religons. And since religon plays a huge role in this, it is accepted by Christan, and even Mulsim scholars that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews.
Without bringing the UN into this, what claim do the Palastinian's have to Israel? It certainly wasn't that they were there first, or that they were better land owners.
Since the Jews took back Israel it has turned from a third to first world country in the span of 50 years. The Jews allow people of all religons to visit their lands. The Jews give, that's all the jews do; and the Arabs take, and what they get, they keep for themselves.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assumed what Mr Card wrote several months back. I guess it takes a while to realise what Sharon has done.
First off, he played himself, revealing a weakness. Is it not enough with that stupid way Barak lleft Lbanon that now Sharon is having a humiliating, telvised scenario going on (it's over now)? Moreover, isn't it obvious that the Disengagement Plan is only his elusive method of avoiding responsibility for things he's done? E.g., the whole case with David Apple? (Sp?)
Sharon did the right move, the wrong way. The whole of the bloody government is made of generals. Look what it led Israel to in the past 15 years, ever since Yitzhak Shamir.
Yes, the way Israel retreated, it's all stimuli to terrorism (be smarter than the crackpot of a Prime Minister we have - know the difference between terror and terrorism!), and a good encouragement for it all to continue. Sharon spent billions of dollars removing people by force. What the fool should've done is simple; give them the option of leaving with support, or leave them to Hammas. The ball at the objectors' court, and no excuse for their decisions.
The right move, the wrong method. How oblivious can it possibly be? Now you have ex-settlers in their SEPERATED communities, pretending to weep as victims of a terrible tyrrany, being torn away from their homes. While I think it's wrong, it's perfectly legitimate. Who's responible for that? ARIEL SHARON.
Also, what's this whole business of JEWS got to do with it? It's a political matter of people who're classified here NOT by their religion. Get into your head, please, Hammas are not attacking JEWS, they are attacking the evil ISRAELI regime which is not extremist Islam. The same happens in Egypt, where they are ARABS. We all know that the West Bank was never annexed cause that decreases the Jewish proportion of the population. But that's not to say that any non-Jew in the Gaza Strip, being evicted, has a different status. Get the Jewish bit out of your mind, then talk about right or wrong.
That is, of course, unless you insert religion into it. Gecko, how about southern Syria and western Jordan? Where does that fit on your agenda? When do the Bashan and the Emori lands enter the Israeli map?
One last thing. Israel is Medinat Yisrael, not Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael, Lisa (regarding a different post of yours in a different thread), does not exist in modern times, it's a religious concept of a land promised in the Bible, which is a set of mythical books, after all. It shan't enter politics in the legal arena so long as it does not realistically exist.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Also, what's this whole business of JEWS got to do with it? It's a political matter of people who're classified here NOT by their religion. Get into your head, please, Hammas are not attacking JEWS, they are attacking the evil ISRAELI regime which is not extremist Islam.
Don't be silly, Jonathan. The Arabs are attacking Jews. They say so themselves in every statement every time. When was the last time you heard itbach al-Israilin? It's itbach al-Yahud, and I think it's kind of weird for you to be arguing with them about who they think they're trying to kill.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: One last thing. Israel is Medinat Yisrael, not Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael, Lisa (regarding a different post of yours in a different thread), does not exist in modern times, it's a religious concept of a land promised in the Bible, which is a set of mythical books, after all. It shan't enter politics in the legal arena so long as it does not realistically exist.
Jonathan, your recognition or lack thereof does not define reality. Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Yisrael. It was before the state came along and it will be long after as well.
You can think of the Torah as mythical. As I said, your view doesn't actually change reality.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will never get the Jew bit out of my mind. The Jew bit is what this entire conflict is about.
Yes, the bombers are blowing up Israeli citizen's. More than 80% of Israeli citizens are, guess what, Jews. I don't see your point.
If you truly believe the members of Hamas and Fatah are blind when it comes to who they kill, you're just deluding yourself.
Edit: I can't believe that I just read that you would have left the Israeli's who chose not to evacuate in the hands of the PLO and Hammas. Yeah, that's what Sharon would have done, if he was as heartless as you. Sharon knows that it's hard for the settlers to move, but he moved them in their best interest. If they were to be left in the care of the PLO and Hammas, they would have been killed. What he did was save them by forcing them to leave, making it better for them in the long run.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Palestinians are lobbing rockets? Send in the Marines now! Find every Palistinian Arab with any kind of weapon and arrest them. If that doesn't stop it take families as hostages.
And if that doesn't work.... well here's a passage:
"They made a desert and called it peace."
After all a single death is a tragedy a million is a statistic.
IP: Logged |
quote: Jonathan, your recognition or lack thereof does not define reality. Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Yisrael. It was before the state came along and it will be long after as well.
But the current nation of Israel is not Eretz Yisrael. Also, I recognise the importance of Eretz Yisrael in our tradition; but since we are not in it, we cannot treat the State of Israel as Eretz Yistael.
Also, Hammas and the Islamic Jihad is not against the Jews because they are Jews; it is against anyone or anything which is not an extremist Muslim.
quote: I can't believe that I just read that you would have left the Israeli's who chose not to evacuate in the hands of the PLO and Hammas. Yeah, that's what Sharon would have done, if he was as heartless as you. Sharon knows that it's hard for the settlers to move, but he moved them in their best interest. If they were to be left in the care of the PLO and Hammas, they would have been killed. What he did was save them by forcing them to leave, making it better for them in the long run.
Then don't believe it, but know that there is more than one way to get out of the strip.
There are people over there who during the evacuation did things so terrible that "desperately immoral" is not even getting close. Ariel Sharon was moving against the will of those people, and was forcing them to leave. There are people who will now start saying "I'd rather be murdered by Hammas over there than live over here", which is also ridiculous, because if - as they say - we all live in "Eretz Yisrael", then Jerusalem and Ascalon are just as important. (Mind you, Gaza was doubtly ever part of the holy land.)
So if Sharon is taking them out, ex-settlers will begin justifying more violence (and yes, there WILL be more of it) by the fact that they are depressed, they were kicked out of their homes, they were frustrated and they are pissed off at the whole damn world. Let's just say that some of them think they are Mordechai Anilewicz.
Had Sharon said "I'm not forcing anyone out. Tzahal is packing up and leaving on such and such a date. Whoever complies and leaves will be given a house, a farm, whatever", had he given the fanatics from the paragraph above (and as we've seen, there are some of those fanatics) - he would've given each a choice: is the land of Israel the most important thing to you? Is it more important than governmental decisions? If so, stay, but we are no longer there to assist you, our plans have changed; you don't want to be left alone? Then come out and you'll be supported by us, you'll be back in the lands of Israel.
Also, it would've eliminated the fifteen-odd thousand little teenage pricks who protested by gnawing on the soldiers, kicking their genitals and throwing acids in their eyes.
It doesn't matter in this case why they moved out, it's only a matter of how they moved out. I reckon they did it the wrong way. The result? Soldirs injured (acid thrown in eyes, for instance), a lot of resentment on the ex-settlers' part (and do not underestimate it, it tore the nation apart for 38 years), and televised humiliation.
[ September 12, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jonathan, your recognition or lack thereof does not define reality. Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Yisrael. It was before the state came along and it will be long after as well.
But the current nation of Israel is not Eretz Yisrael. Also, I recognise the importance of Eretz Yisrael in our tradition; but since we are not in it, we cannot treat the State of Israel as Eretz Yistael.
You miss the point, Jonathan. I'm quite aware that Dawlat Israil is not the same as Eretz Yisrael (that's the Land of Israel, for y'all in our studio audience).
Eretz Yisrael is not just "part of our tradition". It is what it is. And the State of Israel is one polity among many that has existed in part of Eretz Yisrael throughout history.
A state -- any state -- is merely a tool. To the extent that it works well, it's a good tool. To the extent that it works poorly, it's a bad tool. This is true regardless of the state.
The State of Israel was founded, not to be a state of Israelis, but to be a state of Jews. Of the Jews, by the Jews and for the Jews. That was its entire raison d'etre. But now it labels the expulsion of Arabs "immoral" and the expulsion of Jews "moral". In acting against its raison d'etre as a state of the Jews, it has become a bad tool.
Understand, those who point out that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nationality are correct only to the same extent that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality. And for those of us who believe in ideas such as middah k'neged middah (the idea that God repays us in kind... sort of like the eastern idea of Karma: what goes around, comes around), it's pretty interesting to see that the creation of an artificial "Israeli" nationality spawned an artificial "Palestinian" nationality. It's almost fitting.
The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Period. The Israeli government has no more right to interfere with that than the British Mandatory government did before it.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Also, Hammas and the Islamic Jihad is not against the Jews because they are Jews; it is against anyone or anything which is not an extremist Muslim.
They are specifically against the Jews. More than anything else. And even more specifically against Jews living in Israel. Don't be naive.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: So if Sharon is taking them out, ex-settlers will begin justifying more violence (and yes, there WILL be more of it) by the fact that they are depressed, they were kicked out of their homes, they were frustrated and they are pissed off at the whole damn world. Let's just say that some of them think they are Mordechai Anilewicz.
I imagine you would have dissed him as well. After all, he was flouting the laws of the land. Committing acts of war against the government. <gasp>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
waaaaaaait... didn't Mordechai lead a resistence movement vs the Germans in Warsaw? I know a little bit of his personality from a few turtledove novels and he's quite the leader.
IP: Logged |
posted
How odd, that the mail I've received from Israelis about the column suggests that I do know something about the situation on the ground there.
As for Sharon being "out for himself," what does that have to do with anything? He's a politician and he's ambitious. Exactly which statesman ever got to power without ambition? Lincoln? Ha ha. MAYBE Washington ... but I think not. He worked way too hard to be self-effacing, but he had his friends who promoted him. Jefferson? One of the most sadly ambitious men in American history. Statesmen are, by definition, "ambitious and powerful men who NEVERTHELESS act in a way that suggests they are thinking of the long term, and not just their immediate benefit."
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARGH!!! So obvious! How could I forget that little thing. Argh, thats right. But ya... While its sad that 9000 Israeli's lost their homes this hopefully should set the stage for peace. Aaaaaad.... that just gave me an idea for another thread...
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh a Mr Card can my local school's newspaper print your article in our paper?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: How odd, that the mail I've received from Israelis about the column suggests that I do know something about the situation on the ground there.
As for Sharon being "out for himself," what does that have to do with anything? He's a politician and he's ambitious. Exactly which statesman ever got to power without ambition? Lincoln? Ha ha. MAYBE Washington ... but I think not. He worked way too hard to be self-effacing, but he had his friends who promoted him. Jefferson? One of the most sadly ambitious men in American history. Statesmen are, by definition, "ambitious and powerful men who NEVERTHELESS act in a way that suggests they are thinking of the long term, and not just their immediate benefit."
With all due respect, Mr. Card, while I can't prove that Sharon had absolutely no intent whatsoever of doing the PR stunt you attributed to him, I do think that it runs counter to the man and his personality.
And your idea that Arab attacks from Gaza on Israel after the withdrawal would somehow be seen as anything new or different, either by Israel or the rest of the world, has now been disproven by the facts. So while it would have been nice had you been right about it, it isn't really a matter of opinion any more, is it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The thing is that doing this won't help Sharon's carreer so why do it?
Maybe the world pressured him to do it, then what can you say? Israel depends on foreign aid to mantain its military (i think, correct me if I'm wrong).
The point is is that by giving away Gaza Israel looks like they're trying to do the right thing and if the terrorists slap Israel in the face then Israel proves ot the world that there is no negotiating with terrorists.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The thing is that doing this won't help Sharon's carreer so why do it?
There's more to life than politics, Blayne. Sharon is a criminal, and staying out of jail can be a pretty strong motivation.
Boomerang is the title of a book written in Hebrew by two left wing Israelis, who, despite their support for things like the Gaza pullout, felt it was important to make the true motivations for Sharon's actions known.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Maybe the world pressured him to do it, then what can you say? Israel depends on foreign aid to mantain its military (i think, correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't believe that's the case, though I know people who would disagree with me.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The point is is that by giving away Gaza Israel looks like they're trying to do the right thing and if the terrorists slap Israel in the face then Israel proves ot the world that there is no negotiating with terrorists.
And yet the terrorists are doing exactly that, and the world does not seem to be learning from it that there's no negotiating with terrorists.
Perhaps you meant that the world should learn that. If so, I most heartily agree. But the world isn't, and it should have been obvious that they wouldn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If what your saying is true then what Should Israel do? Its one thing to complain, but its better to have a solution.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If what your saying is true then what Should Israel do? Its one thing to complain, but its better to have a solution.
Expel every single Arab from Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and kill any who enter our borders.
People will scream like the world is coming to an end, but it's okay.
Any time a single rocket or grenade or so much as a rock is thrown at Israel from the outside, carpet bomb the area it came from. Show no mercy, do not compromise in so much as a grain of sand.
Being nice doesn't work. God knows we've tried it for over half a century. Once they've gotten a good taste of the stick, then it can be time to offer them some carrot.
The mineral wealth in the Dead Sea is immense, but it can only be gotten to if there's water in the bottom half. Despite what your maps may say, the whole bottom lobe of the Dead Sea is dried up. Plans to build a canal either from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea were cancelled largely because of the Arabs. The Dead Sea being as low as it is, we're talking about free hydro-electric power as well as great mineral wealth.
There's plenty to do, and the surrounding Arab countries would eventually benefit from it. If they can keep their damned guns in their holsters.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of the Chinese governments recommednation to the american DEA, either legalize the drugs or institute the death penalty for selling it. It has to be zero tolerance.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This is also reminescent of my other thread "Can Terrorism Ever Be Defeated" where it only ended when A they won or B a totalitarian government was able to institute total and complete control of information, transportation over the given people/area.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry lisa, everything you said was very good and accurate. But throwing all the arabs out is not an option.
Not practically, not morally.
There are many Arabs who fight alongside Jews in the army. There are many Arabs who have thrown their lot in with us.
Furthermore, a great deal of this mess was exacerbated (not started) when Jewish socialists/communists thought that taking land from Arabs at gunpoint was a good idea.
However, like I said, I agree with everything else you've written. Retaking Gaza will become a greater and greater nightmare as time goes on. Whereas before it was a population of several million poorly armed Arabs who hated us. It will become a population of several million fanatics who will be armed to the teeth. The Egyptians only have a token border at this point. They are training their children to become martyrs.
I agree with you that it is our land. But the land was promised to our ancestor Avraham, and yet he paid for Machpelah anyway. Furthermore, when Levi and Shimon went to war over Dinah, Yaakov cursed their anger because they brought us into a battle we nearly couldn't win. The situation is the same now. We can't fight the whole world, and this isn't the time for it anyway.
So what then? You have to keep praying of course. But more importantly our people must have unity. Without it, we are vulnerable, with it, by G-ds grace, invulnerable. There has never been or ever will be an exception to that rule.
I can hear in the tone of your writing how upset you are. Please do not despair. Sharon can make whatever decisions he likes for whatever reasons he likes. If it works, lovely, if not, it doesn't matter. In the end, it isn't up to him. You must know and believe that there is a Hand that is guiding us all. He knows what He is doing.
I can see that you are clearly better at this than I am, and I apologize if my post seems patronizing or corny, I don't mean to be. But I am very touched by your writing and needed to respond.
And for what it's worth, I honestly hope that you are right Mr. Card. Lord knows, Sharon has done things in the past which I regarded as wacky and turned out to be clever, may this be one of them.
quote:Originally posted by ballantrae: I'm sorry lisa, everything you said was very good and accurate. But throwing all the arabs out is not an option.
Not practically, not morally.
I disagree with your estimation of the morality of it, but as far as practicality, I hope you're wrong, or this war won't end until Israel is gone.
quote:Originally posted by ballantrae: Furthermore, a great deal of this mess was exacerbated (not started) when Jewish socialists/communists thought that taking land from Arabs at gunpoint was a good idea.
So... what part of what I wrote did you think was good and accurate? 'Cause I don't agree with that at all.
quote:Originally posted by ballantrae: I can hear in the tone of your writing how upset you are. Please do not despair. Sharon can make whatever decisions he likes for whatever reasons he likes. If it works, lovely, if not, it doesn't matter. In the end, it isn't up to him. You must know and believe that there is a Hand that is guiding us all. He knows what He is doing.
I know that. Ron, I'm well aware that we win in the end. My concern is for the damage done in the meantime.
We can't just sit and wait for God to work things out. There needs to be a balance between emunah and hishtadlut.
quote:Originally posted by ballantrae: I can see that you are clearly better at this than I am, and I apologize if my post seems patronizing or corny, I don't mean to be. But I am very touched by your writing and needed to respond.
Thanks. And I'm sorry if my reply comes across too cranky.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Expel every single Arab from Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and kill any who enter our borders.
You would become a genocidal murderer to prevent an Arab from crossing a border which only exists as some theoretical point on a map?
quote:People will scream like the world is coming to an end, but it's okay.
I hope to god that they would. This endless fight over land will never end as long as there are uncompromising fanatics on both sides.
quote:Any time a single rocket or grenade or so much as a rock is thrown at Israel from the outside, carpet bomb the area it came from. Show no mercy, do not compromise in so much as a grain of sand..
Doing this would do nothing but galvanize the world against Israel, and rightly so. You would indiscriminately murder as many people as it takes to prove your point? I hope that you're never in a position where your influence would matter, because god help the Israeli people if your version of "defending" Israel ever becomes a reality.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you know the difference between genocide and self defense? How does deporting Arabs equate to Genocide at all? What kind of person would make that comparison?
If the Arabs are expelled from Israel, that's a pretty good indication that they are not wanted.
Those who choose to cross the border anyway, what would their purpose be? They wouldn't be able to get a job, buy a house or make a living in Israel. Their only reason would be to commit acts of terror.
No one would miss those people.
Grow up and take off the rose colored glasses. You haven't the idea, or the stomach to understand what is necessary to stop Arab fanatics.
No amount of peace treaties will keep a wolf away from a flock of sheep. A wall would do the trick, a gun would do the trick. Words won't do anything. It's been tried for over 60 years.
Israel should do everything it can to protect it's people. The lives of scum bag terrorists shouldn't even be on the radar. It's Jewish land, run by Jewish people, and they can decide who they want on it, and who they don't.
I don't want anyone do die. I want the Arabs to stay on their side and the Jews to stay on their side and play nice. But some Arabs just choose to cross the border, they choose to kill Jews and they choose to die. Israel has never killed a terrorist who didn't ask to be.
quote: Expel every single Arab from Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and kill any who enter our borders.
You would become a genocidal murderer to prevent an Arab from crossing a border which only exists as some theoretical point on a map?
Chris Chance? Wow, you look different.
So, Chris, would you mind either showing where I suggested genocide, or retracting that statement and apologizing for it? Now-ish?
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:People will scream like the world is coming to an end, but it's okay.
I hope to god that they would. This endless fight over land will never end as long as there are uncompromising fanatics on both sides.
I am a fanatic when it comes to stopping people from killing me. I admit to the flaw. I've always thought that letting people kill me a little, and stopping them a little... well, it still ends up with me dead. I'm against that.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:Any time a single rocket or grenade or so much as a rock is thrown at Israel from the outside, carpet bomb the area it came from. Show no mercy, do not compromise in so much as a grain of sand..
Doing this would do nothing but galvanize the world against Israel, and rightly so.
Rightly so? I wonder why... after all, when Arabs murder people for having a slice of pizza, the world doesn't get galvanized.
When their first reaction to our giving in and evacuating Gaza was to shoot rockets at us, the world somehow managed not to be galvanized. Hell, it's barely page 38 news. "Arabs attack Israel". It's right there, next to the news about Bill Cosby being black and Ellen DeGeneris being gay.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: You would indiscriminately murder as many people as it takes to prove your point? I hope that you're never in a position where your influence would matter, because god help the Israeli people if your version of "defending" Israel ever becomes a reality.
It's not a matter of proving points. An Arab suicide bomber doesn't give a damn if we kill him. He's trying to do that himself, after all.
They think they're going to go to heaven and get a bunch of virgins to wait on them, and that the reward goes up according to the number of Jews they take with them. You can't reason with people like that. You can't bribe them with trinkets and beads and international aid. You can't threaten them, because there's nothing you can do to them. When they blow themselves up, they know that their family will receive a big check from... well, Saddam is gone now, but someone keeps paying.
What you can do is let them know that it isn't going to be just them. That their family isn't going to get a check, because they'll be living upstairs from those seventy virgins, using up all the heavenly hot water.
I'm willing to try that. Why not? Their friends and family are supporting them in their attacks. They're hardly innocent bystanders.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure who this is, so I don't know if I should be offended...
As far as your response on genocide, I suppose genocide was probably not the right word to use. Genocide is a proactive, systematic, planned, killing of a group; where your plan would only apply to those with the gall to try to enter Israel.
quote:Rightly so? I wonder why... after all, when Arabs murder people for having a slice of pizza, the world doesn't get galvanized.
When their first reaction to our giving in and evacuating Gaza was to shoot rockets at us, the world somehow managed not to be galvanized. Hell, it's barely page 38 news. "Arabs attack Israel". It's right there, next to the news about Bill Cosby being black and Ellen DeGeneris being gay.
Yes, rightly so, because for better or worse, the world expects better from Israel. The world considers Israel to be a civilized country, and civilized countries don't carpet-bomb peoples houses because someone threw a rock.
quote: What you can do is let them know that it isn't going to be just them. That their family isn't going to get a check, because they'll be living upstairs from those seventy virgins, using up all the heavenly hot water.
This is one of the most ass-backwards arguments I've heard concerning this. You would, in effect, become a terrorist to prevent terrorism. And before you begin defending your position, can you honestly say that you would take the chance of killing innocent women and children in the vain hope of hitting the target?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure who this is, so I don't know if I should be offended...
Check this. It was a joke, based on an assumption of where you got your handle from.
But... you can be offended if you like. <smile>
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: As far as your response on genocide, I suppose genocide was probably not the right word to use. Genocide is a proactive, systematic, planned, killing of a group; where your plan would only apply to those with the gall to try to enter Israel.
Um, yeah. See Gecko's post. At what point does it become acceptable to say that having them there results in Arab murders of Jews? Because, my friend, I'm concerned about the Jews getting killed by the Arabs, and I'm not at all concerned about the welfare of the Arabs who are doing the killing and aiding the killers.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:Rightly so? I wonder why... after all, when Arabs murder people for having a slice of pizza, the world doesn't get galvanized.
When their first reaction to our giving in and evacuating Gaza was to shoot rockets at us, the world somehow managed not to be galvanized. Hell, it's barely page 38 news. "Arabs attack Israel". It's right there, next to the news about Bill Cosby being black and Ellen DeGeneris being gay.
Yes, rightly so, because for better or worse, the world expects better from Israel. The world considers Israel to be a civilized country, and civilized countries don't carpet-bomb peoples houses because someone threw a rock.
Then maybe it's time to stop worrying about whether the world thinks of us as uncivilized. If you're right, well, it doesn't seem as though being thought uncivilized has harmed the Arabs much. On the contrary; it gives them virtual carte blanche.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: What you can do is let them know that it isn't going to be just them. That their family isn't going to get a check, because they'll be living upstairs from those seventy virgins, using up all the heavenly hot water.
This is one of the most ass-backwards arguments I've heard concerning this. You would, in effect, become a terrorist to prevent terrorism.
It wouldn't be terrorism. Dude, this is war. It's not crime. If someone mugs me, I wouldn't take out his whole block or apartment building. This isn't crime; it's war. And we are not only within our rights to do whatever is necessary to stop them from hurting us; we are morally obligated to do so.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: And before you begin defending your position, can you honestly say that you would take the chance of killing innocent women and children in the vain hope of hitting the target?
Define "innocent". When I see mothers of suicide bombers getting up on Palestinian TV and talking about how proud she is of her martyred child, and how she's just glad he was able to take a lot of Jews with him... "innocent" isn't the first word that comes to mind.
But just to make this abundantly clear, and you can quote me on this:
Given the brutality of Arab atrocities committed against Jews simply for being Jews and against Israel simply for existing, if the cost of saving even a single Jew from such animalistic actions were to be calculated in millions of Arab lives, I would consider it a bargain.
I'd much prefer for no Arabs to die. None. They should live long and prosper. But if they can't keep from trying to kill us, I have no problem shutting them down.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're a fanatic. And you're just as dangerous as every other fanatic who dehumanizes a group of people to justify actions committed against them.
To say that you would sacrifice millions of Arabs to save one Jew is insane, because that one Jew could be a horrible child-molesting pervert, while the Arabs could just be normal people. Does the fact that one is Jewish make them more worthy to live?
You know what? Don't bother answering. You've already decided what your opinion will be, and you'll spend the rest of your life dogmatically defending it. I'm just going to concede, and agree to disagree. Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Way to mud-sling and not address any relevant topics raised. Your "taking the high ground" by backing out of a discussion you are losing and obviously know nothing about further proves your ignorance.
If you had the choice of saving your father by having to sacrifice a million people, a billion, you would do it in a second.
That if what you have to understand. All Jew in the world are like brothers, a tight nit group that have been sustained by their faith after THOUSANDS of years of bigotry. That's how Jews see each other, as family. When one Jew dies, it's a blow to the Jewish community in a way you can't understand.
Arabs, however, are at war even against themselves. Killing each other because one sect doesn't worship God in a way that the other sect approves of.
The bottom line is the Jews don't need your OK, or the USA's OK, or any country's OK to do what they have to do to defend themselves. And that's basically the entire Jewish position on the war with the Arabs: Just leave us alone and let us life our lives.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Gecko, but you are not completely correct. You cannot sacrifice a million Arabs for one Jew. Or a thousand, or even one. That's not how it works.
I admit that I am not an expert on the subject. So, if you disagree, please show me where in our laws or in our history there has ever been a situation to the contrary.
I will say the same thing to you that I did to Lisa. While the concept of population transfer is not unheard of (after all, it was just done). Nevertheless, in practical terms it is not possible to ask all the Arabs to leave the area of Israel. Nor is it even morally right.
On the other hand, for those of you who are wagging your heads saying "yes it is not morally right to transfer populations, etc." How on earth is it morally right to make an area of Israel, ISRAEL, Judenrein? How would you like me to make a portion of Italy free of all Catholics? Or to ban Mormons from a section of Utah? Say putting Mecca off bounds to Arabs? Doesn't seem very pleasant now does it? Yet that is exactly what some people want to do with Jerusalem itself.
I look at it this way. Land had been stolen from segments of the Arab population in Israel. Sorry Lisa, that is a fact, it isn't up for debate. Although Lord knows that hardly excuses them in turn. So this is simply balancing the scales. Now they are owed nothing. They had land taken away, they took land away in turn.
They have their own chance to destroy themselves or build a paradise. They cannot argue lack of funds or lack of political will, because they most certainly have both in abundance.
Personally, I do not have much stake in their success or failure. If they succeed then it will be a good thing on many levels. If they fail, ie, they choose to continue with the violence, well, I can see how that can also be good in the long run as well.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ballantrae: I'm sorry Gecko, but you are not completely correct. You cannot sacrifice a million Arabs for one Jew. Or a thousand, or even one. That's not how it works.
I admit that I am not an expert on the subject. So, if you disagree, please show me where in our laws or in our history there has ever been a situation to the contrary.
Ha-tov she'ba-goyim, b'sha'at milchama, harog. That's settled Jewish law. It's first stated in our sources by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and it's brought down in all of our sources. The Shulchan Aruch even brings it down twice. It is practical halakha and not merely theoretical, or for messianic times (since the Shulchan Aruch doesn't even cover messianic times).
It's moot, because we're not in a position to sacrifice a million Arab lives for one Jewish life, but the principle stands. And under no circumstance is it permissible to risk a single Jewish life to spare any member of a nation which is warring against us.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
How that quote justifies genocide I'm not clear. <snarky comment edited>
So far you managed to give me an out of context aphorism, and an assertion that that the law is such and such in two, as yet, undisclosed places.
Under "no circumstances"? None whatsoever? You can't think of a single situation in which taking a risk to spare the life of a righeteous gentile whose nation is at war with ours would be a good thing, even at risk to our own?
You mean the incident with Rachav doesn't count somehow? That we are required to leave one side open on a beseiged city no longer applies? The worthless inhabitants of Gibeon weren't given members of the royal family for their vengeance?
News to me. I could go on, but why bother?
Please reconsider what you are saying.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
