This is really boggling my mind, and I would like to know what other people think about this. I just can't seem to grasp how large groups of people are condemning what Isreal is doing. The way I see it is that a group of terrorists are routinely launching rockets into Israeli territory as well as Kidnapping Israeli soldiers/citizens if it gets the chance. The Hezballah soldiers wear civilian clothing and launch their rockets from populated civilian areas then people condemn Isreal for shooting back at where the rockets came from. Personally, if I was a lebanesse citizen and saw a group of people start launching some rockets from my neighborhood I'd be torn between getting the hell out of the neighborhood in anticipation of the impending airstrike and taking a rifle right towards the people who are marking my neighborhood as a target.
So heres the question I want to know if anyone can answer in such a fashion to make me think twice. How can anyone defend/justify Lebanon and Hezballah and condemn Isreal?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
taking bets on how long before this thread gets locked....
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think many people think it is wrong to kill hundreds of civilians and devestate the infrastructure of another country in order to further your own political purposes, even if your purposes are valid. That is why they condemn Israel.
Other people think it is okay to attack another country, kidnapping non-civilians and endangering countless civilians, for your own political purposes, if your political purpose is important enough and if you have no other way of achieving it. I think that is how they might defend/justify Hezbollah.
I suspect most people, though, haven't really thought it through well enough and are just plain biased against one side or another.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If you're wondering how people can condemn Israel, I might be able to offer some insight. My wife was flipping through the channels yesterday and watched something on NBC. I was reading The Talisman. She went to the other room, and I didn't turn the TV off. After a bit, at least 30 minutes of coverage on Qana started.
The coverage seemed very anti-Israel. The constant implication is that Israel was responding unprovoked. There was not one mention of the 1,600 rockets Hilzbullah had launched at Israel since the beginning of the conflict, of which over 150 of them came from Qana. It merely said that the news crew could not find any evidence of rockets being fired from Qana and then implied that the IDF was intentionally targeting civilians (while showing pictures of people digging through rubble and dead bodies of children). I found the report to be so void of balance that I just turned it off.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You should have stuck with reading The Talisman. That's an excellent use of your time. One of my favorite books.
TK, you'll find that many people here won't condemn Israel and defend Hezbollah. They'll trim instead, and say "A pox on both their houses. I don't want to hear about it. It's all bad, and don't bother me with the facts." They'll try and argue for some kind of moral equivalence.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Actually Lisa, I was reading it because I've been looking for some fun books to read and someone (I think you in fact) had mentioned it in the Fantasy Books Made Into Movies thread.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ah. Well, I hope you enjoy it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
There are some people who condemn Israel for irrational reasons. Maybe they like rooting for the underdog (Hezbollah), or maybe they're a little bit anti-Semitic, or maybe they just don't like Israel. There are rational reasons to dislike what Israel is doing, but I think many people who support Hezbollah don't do so for intelligent reasons.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't think deep down it has anything to do with civilian deaths. Most countries kept their mouths shut when the US did the same thing by going into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban. I think most countries just want to appease the Arab nations by comdemning anything Israel does.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't like the civilian deaths and I don't like that Isreal did not keep its word (48 hours without air strikes to let the civies get out would have been nice). I was also not pleased with the US and Afghanistan and civilian losses. But I think you also have to keep in mind the justification- this current mess started due to the capture of 2 soldiers. 9-11 is a much more convincing reason. So, it is harder to justify the civilian deaths. I am in no way supporting Hezbollah though. They also kill civilians which is bad. Hence why I am in the pox on both their houses camp. However, if the US changed our reasons for supporting Isreal, I would probably be more willing to go along (ie that Hezbollah is making trouble because Iran wants trouble and this is a response to Iran as well). Justification changes the politics and affects how the world views our actions.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: There are some people who condemn Israel for irrational reasons. Maybe they like rooting for the underdog (Hezbollah), or maybe they're a little bit anti-Semitic, or maybe they just don't like Israel. There are rational reasons to dislike what Israel is doing, but I think many people who support Hezbollah don't do so for intelligent reasons.
I think your right. My wife came home the other day wanting to know what was going on from my point of view. She said the other teachers she works with just go on about how the evil Israelis are murdering people. They probably haven't picked up a newspaper or turned on CNN in a decade.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: taking bets on how long before this thread gets locked....
alittle bit unfair Pixiest seeing as how I could bet and then make sure the thread closed when I wanted it to.
----
But back on topic. I was watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN and he was doing a special on suicide bombers where he showed several clips provided by the Israeli military of Hezbolah suicide bombers.
He showed a jet skiier who ignored several warnings from the Israeli police who then fired on him. His jet ski was loaded with explosives.
They showed 2 allegedly stranded boatmen who were picked up by the Israeli military that were actually suicide bombers who detonated their craft once Israeli sailors started trying to get them on board.
Lastly they showed a seemingly deflated boat. The Israeli navy fired machine gun fire into it for a minute or so to check for explosives and the whole thing just blew up. They showed the explosion from another angle (further away) the explosion was HUGE.
While I was in Washington I saw a 30 minute special on Hezbolah produced by CNN and it showed clearly what Hezbolah's motives and methods are.
All in all, everything I have seen on CNN lately has been pretty balanced and actually quite pro Israeli. (Remember I said everything I HAVE SEEN).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there are two interesting questions that might be asked about the conflict. First question : What would be the ideal solution? Suppose we could remove all the fanatics from the equation; suppose Israel went for several years on end without getting shot at. What would happen to the Palestinians? (And before Lisa responds, by 'fanatics' I did mean to include the people who think nobody but the Chosen People should live in the Holy Land.)
Second, since that's plainly a rather unlikely scenario, what solution is Israel actually trying for? Their leaders may not be absolute paragons of statesmanship, but still, they are sufficiently competent politicians to get elected in a real democracy; one would assume they cannot be actively stupid. (And before someone points at Bush, no, I don't think he's stupid either, he's actually rather clever at helping his friends.) So there is, presumably, some kind of long-term solution in mind when the order is given to shoot at Hezbollah. Do they believe Hezbollah can be defeated in the field, or at least reduced to military impotence? (If so, they might be right; after all, Hezbollah is actually standing up to fight, this time. That might be a mistake for them.) Do they hope to occupy enough land to put their major cities outside rocket range? (Probably not going to happen.) Do they intend to convince the Arabs that they are still Israel, the deadliest military power on the block? Might work, but then, that hasn't produced peace yet.
Thinking about it, I suppose the likeliest option is that they are just responding to a crisis day by day, and doing their best to end the killing temporarily, in the hope that a miracle will come along.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually support Israel if they know how the Palestinian people have been treated by them over the years.
Israel has no sympathy with me.
Here we have something like the world's fifth largest military power, with the world's largest military power as their closest ally, regularly harassing and abusing the palestinians for decades, and still seeing themselves as the victims in this conflict.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Thinking about it, I suppose the likeliest option is that they are just responding to a crisis day by day, and doing their best to end the killing temporarily, in the hope that a miracle will come along.
I think there is a strong arguement for this reality KOM. I tend to agree with it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There are some people who condemn Israel for irrational reasons. Maybe they like rooting for the underdog (Hezbollah), or maybe they're a little bit anti-Semitic, or maybe they just don't like Israel. There are rational reasons to dislike what Israel is doing, but I think many people who support Hezbollah don't do so for intelligent reasons.
Yes, but I suspect the same holds similarly true for people supporting Israel in this war. It is difficult to come up with too many good reasons to justify such a destructive invasion that seems to be accomplishing so little in the long run over the kidnapping of two soldiers. I suspect the main reason Israel gets such support from America in particular is an emotional bias in favor of the more western Israel over an Arabic world that has produced things like Al Qaeda.
In truth, I think there is only one really decent rational argument for what is going on in Lebanon right now, and it works equally for both sides. That is the fact that unless there is some major shift in the Middle East dynamic, it appears killing will go on indefinitelyin the region. The hope of both Hezbollah and Israel is that by taking extreme action, they can alter the balance in a way that will eventually bring an end to all this. I don't agree with that argument though - because I don't think it is so easy to see into the future. I think it is wrong to kill so many civilians just because you HOPE that somehow that will lead to peace in the long run. For that reason, I think the terrorism of the Palestinians, the violence from Hezbollah, and Israel's war are all misguided and unethical.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh and after doing some research I found that Wolf Blitzer is Jewish, that may or may not have something to do with his portrayal of Israel in this conflict.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Other people think it is okay to attack another country, kidnapping non-civilians and endangering countless civilians, for your own political purposes, if your political purpose is important enough and if you have no other way of achieving it. I think that is how they might defend/justify Hezbollah.
I think the people who take this view and apply it to the conflict with Hezbollah are wrong for several reasons. One of Hezbollah’s declared objectives is to achieve an Islamic republic in Lebanon. Hezbollah declares that it wishes to do so using political and peaceful means. Another of Hezbollah’s declared objectives is to destroy Israel and, I understand that a number of Hezbollah leaders over the years have stated openly that they seek the elimination of Jews everywhere on Earth.
The latter objectives, i.e., the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews for the sake merely of killing Jews, are illegal and immoral. If Hezbollah limits itself exclusively to the former objectives, i.e., the peaceful creation of Islamic government for Lebanon, then Hezbollah has no reason to take up arms.
On the other hand, as of 2000, Israel has remained wholly within the internationally recognized border separating Israel from Lebanon. Israel has no interest in occupying or annexing any portion of Lebanon.
Israel is ready, willing and able to co-exist peacefully with Lebanon. Hezbollah, however, denounces and seeks to prevent such co-existence. Hezbollah, therefore, has taken up arms for a solely illegitimate purpose. Hezbollah’s “political purpose” can never be deemed important enough by any rational standards to justify “attacking another country, kidnapping non-civilians and endangering countless civilians.”
Moreover, the techniques and strategy employed by Hezbollah are repugnant. Hezbollah’s militants and arms are fully entrenched within and operate from the Lebanese civilian population, and Hezbollah uses the civilian infrastructure to carry out violence against Israelis. Hezbollah does this so that any counter-attack or military effort by Israel to defend against attacks on its population place Lebanese civilians at grave risk. Hezbollah wants Israel to attack and to accidentally kill civilians in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s strategy is designed to cause the rest of the world to apply pressure to Israel to take positions that tolerate Hezbollah’s military presence and to empower Hezbollah in its struggle with Israel. This is a “divide and conquer” strategy, which in large part is working, considering how many within the international community are pressuring Israel for an immediate cease fire.
The brutality and senseless violence of Hezbollah causes, intentionally, civilian deaths on both sides of the conflict. Hezbollah deliberately seeks to spend human life unsparingly on both sides of the conflict to achieve its goals. Its strategy has no direct military value, its direct aim is to terrorize people and provoke a conflict in which both Israelis and Lebanese die.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But I think you also have to keep in mind the justification- this current mess started due to the capture of 2 soldiers. 9-11 is a much more convincing reason. So, it is harder to justify the civilian deaths. I am in no way supporting Hezbollah though. They also kill civilians which is bad. Hence why I am in the pox on both their houses camp.
The current mess was started not just because 2 Israelis were abducted. They were abducted under all of the circumstances described above in my response to Tresopax – circumstances in which Hezbollah has been arming itself for the sole purpose of killing Israelis.
In some ways, Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. If Israel takes military action to defend itself against Hezbollah, then people on both sides of the conflict will die. If Israel takes no action to defend itself, and instead bargains with Hezbollah, Hezbollah (which is a sworn enemy of Israel) gets stronger, and therefore better able to carry out its aim of destroying Israel. Moreover, inaction by Israel likely would be regarded as appeasement by Israel’s enemies, potentially encouraging Hezbollah and others of Israel’s enemies to violence against Israel.
BOTTOM LINE: I think the solution would be for the rest of the world to show intolerance for Hezbollah and its actions and to support Israel in its effort to eliminate Hezbollah as a military threat. The rest of the world ought to take sides – and the right side would be to stand by Israel. Maybe then Hezbollah would see that its strategy of trying to splinter support for Israel will fail, and therefore abandon its strategy. The rest of the world can bring an end to the conflict – but not by demanding an unconditional cease fire.
Bear in mind that supporting Israel in this instance would be nothing more than enforcing an internationally recognized border and the right of any nation to defend itself within that border.
As I argued above, there is no legitimate interest that Hezbollah has in this conflict, and so no reason for the international community to unite in the effort to disarm Hezbollah.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It does seem to me that the bit about "all this over two soldiers?" is sort of wrong. What did Israel do that justified the kidnapping of two soldiers in the first place? Hezbollah's means are completely out of proportion to the provocation. Especially since the provocation is basically "We don't like Jews."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"Yes, but I suspect the same holds similarly true for people supporting Israel in this war. It is difficult to come up with too many good reasons to justify such a destructive invasion that seems to be accomplishing so little in the long run over the kidnapping of two soldiers. I suspect the main reason Israel gets such support from America in particular is an emotional bias in favor of the more western Israel over an Arabic world that has produced things like Al Qaeda."
Yeah, and what would you do to stop someone from launching rockets into your country? Israel is attacking to protect itself. Hezbollah is launching rockets to destroy Israel because they hate Israel. If Hezbollah, and all other terrorist organizations for that matter, gave some kind of promise that they would stop attacking Israel and in a way that Israel can be sure they would keep it, Israel would be too happy to stop fighting and just exist in peace. That's all Israel wants. The same can't be said for the terrorist organizations. They'll be happy when Israel is destroyed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually support Israel if they know how the Palestinian people have been treated by them over the years.
And how have they been treated?
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: Israel has no sympathy with me.
That says more about you than it does about Israel, actually.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: Here we have something like the world's fifth largest military power, with the world's largest military power as their closest ally, regularly harassing and abusing the palestinians for decades, and still seeing themselves as the victims in this conflict.
Oh, please. Is this going to be another one of those instances where someone compares Jews making Arabs stop at checkpoints and Arabs blowing Jews up?
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
There!!! Its people like St. Yogi's opinion that I just cannot seem to grasp. Can you rationally justify your position? And can you do so with factual arguements rather than the usual blind hatred that I am seeing from various Islamic peoples in the middle east?
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:I find it hard to believe that anyone can actually support Israel if they know how the Palestinian people have been treated by them over the years.
Israel has no sympathy with me.
Here we have something like the world's fifth largest military power, with the world's largest military power as their closest ally, regularly harassing and abusing the palestinians for decades, and still seeing themselves as the victims in this conflict.
I get the feeling that a lot of this mindset stems from the fact that Israel has never bothered to play politics in the world sphere. For the last 30 years, the Palestinian people have been oppressed by their own leaders (Palestinian and otherwise), while these leaders blame the Jews for all of their problems. Israel has never bothered to make a big stink about the situation, which I have always believed was a serious mistake.
Jewish blood has been far too cheap for far too long, and I'm glad Israel is doing something about that. But at the same time, Israel could do a lot more to support positive actions from their enemies and former enemies, and their failure to do so encourages the view of Israel as oppressor.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It was noted by a caller on Talk Of the Nation today that many of the rockets Hezbollah has been firing into Israel are extremely mobile. Airstrikes against locations from which rockets have been fired are politically expedient and result in minimal Israeli military commitment or loss, but may be significantly fruitless in terms of accomplishing anything, and increase the risk to civilians.
I'm not inclined to say "a plague on both your houses", but neither am I incilined to say "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself" is some kind of trump card under which any and all actions are justifiable.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Oh, please. Is this going to be another one of those instances where someone compares Jews making Arabs stop at checkpoints and Arabs blowing Jews up?
No, this is going to be one of those cases where Jews making Arabs stop at checkpoints on palestinian territory and stand hours in line every single day, never knowing if they'll be able to make it to school or work that day, as well as imposing curfews, collective punishments, imprisonments without trial in prisons that would make Guantanamo look like a kindergarten, fire live rounds at demonstrations, desecrate farmland, bulldoze houses, put an economic strangle hold on them, build settlements on occupied palestinian land, don't get any sympathy from me. The list can go on.
I do not support terrorism, or terrorist attacks on Israel, but I can understand why the Palestinians are angry and desperate. There is a huge difference between the violence committed by Israel and the one commited by Palestinians: The Israeli violence is controlled by political mechanisms and can be stopped at any time, while the violence comitted by Palestinians is done by single individuals or groups not controlled by any political or democratic mechanisms, and will therefore continue for as long as the Palestinian people feel oppressed by Israel.
I think Israel needs to pursue a different tactic than violence if they ever want peace in the middle east. Likewise I think that peace could be reached if the Palestinian violence is stopped, but you can not expect an oppressed population living in poverty and fear to give up violence as a means.
Some people might say that this is holding Israel to a different standard than the Palestinians, and they are right, in some ways. Israel is the fifth largest military power in the world, and has a vibrant economy and a well educated populace. The Palestinians are poor, have no military, and the level of education can't even compare to Israel. Israel needs to take responsibility.
I believe that none of this would have ever happened if Israel, the US and the rest of the international community had rewarded the Palestinians for trying to create a democracy, by treating Hamas like any other democratically elected leadership. We should have shown the palestinian people that by participating in a democracy they could achieve a better living. Instead, we assured terrorist support for years to come by making the situation worse for them.
Most terrorist groups have a political wing and a militant wing. Experience tells us that when we deal with the political wing, and they get results, support for the militant wing weakens. This was the case for Hamas as well. Hamas has moderate and pragmatic politicians, and if we had been able to treat them in a respectful manner, I believe that the militant wing would have stayed dormant, and none of this would have ever happened.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It was noted by a caller on Talk Of the Nation today that many of the rockets Hezbollah has been firing into Israel are extremely mobile. Airstrikes against locations from which rockets have been fired are politically expedient and result in minimal Israeli military commitment or loss, but may be significantly fruitless in terms of accomplishing anything, and increase the risk to civilians.
I'm not inclined to say "a plague on both your houses", but neither am I incilined to say "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself" is some kind of trump card under which any and all actions are justifiable.
What exactly do you think Israel does have the right to do?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It was noted by a caller on Talk Of the Nation today that many of the rockets Hezbollah has been firing into Israel are extremely mobile. Airstrikes against locations from which rockets have been fired are politically expedient and result in minimal Israeli military commitment or loss, but may be significantly fruitless in terms of accomplishing anything, and increase the risk to civilians.
I'm not inclined to say "a plague on both your houses", but neither am I incilined to say "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself" is some kind of trump card under which any and all actions are justifiable.
What exactly do you think Israel does have the right to do?
quote: Jews making Arabs stop at checkpoints on palestinian territory and stand hours in line every single day, never knowing if they'll be able to make it to school or work that day, as well as imposing curfews, collective punishments, imprisonments without trial in prisons that would make Guantanamo look like a kindergarten, fire live rounds at demonstrations, desecrate farmland, bulldoze houses, put an economic strangle hold on them, build settlements on occupied palestinian land,
Are there any of these things you believe Israel does not have the right to do? What exactly do you think Israel does not have the right to do?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I do not support terrorism, or terrorist attacks on Israel, but I can understand why the Palestinians are angry and desperate. There is a huge difference between the violence committed by Israel and the one commited by Palestinians: The Israeli violence is controlled by political mechanisms and can be stopped at any time, while the violence comitted by Palestinians is done by single individuals or groups not controlled by any political or democratic mechanisms, and will therefore continue for as long as the Palestinian people feel oppressed by Israel.
I think Israel needs to pursue a different tactic than violence if they ever want peace in the middle east. Likewise I think that peace could be reached if the Palestinian violence is stopped, but you can not expect an oppressed population living in poverty and fear to give up violence as a means.
You're under the illusion that the terrorists are attacking Israel because they're desperate and Israelis starting abusing them before Palestinians lifted a finger. The terrorists aren't desperate. They're not launching missiles and sending out suicide bombers in civilian areas because they want peace. They're doing it because they want to kill as many Jews as possible because they hate them.
Israel can't just give up violence and pray that terrorists stop attacking. Israel has so much more to lose. The terrorists have nothing to lose, the hell if they care if civilians die because of them. They just want to kill Israelis at all costs.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
My question was in response to the comments made on the current Hizbullah conflict. I'm curious about where Sterling would draw the line.
Obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere in what a nation can do, I'm just wondering if he thinks in this conflict the line has been crossed or has it not.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: You're under the illusion that the terrorists are attacking Israel because they're desperate and Israelis starting abusing them before Palestinians lifted a finger. The terrorists aren't desperate. They're not launching missiles and sending out suicide bombers in civilian areas because they want peace. They're doing it because they want to kill as many Jews as possible because they hate them.
Israel can't just give up violence and pray that terrorists stop attacking. Israel has so much more to lose. The terrorists have nothing to lose, the hell if they care if civilians die because of them. They just want to kill Israelis at all costs.
I'm saying that support for terrorism would falter if Israel stopped the activity previously mentioned in the post you quoted. And I'm also saying that Israelis started abusing Palestinians before the Palestinians lifted a finger. When Israel started illegally settling on Palestinian land, displacing Palestinians as they went along, they also posted soldiers there whose sole task was to make sure the settlers were living comfortably.
Let me give you some random trivia:
From December 1987 to October 1991, Israeli settlers on palestinian land killed 42 Palestinians. In that time only three trials had concluded. The stiffest sentence: Three years.
In the same time period Palestinians killed 17 settlers . Six of nine suspects captured in these incidents received life imprisonment. One received 20 years. Six family homes were demolished.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
St. Yogi would you then say the Jews would be justified in suicide bombing Romans if they had continued to occupy Jerusalem after kicking the jews out in an incredibly bloody siege?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right. You've shown that two things happened at the same time. Well done. In the same period, I myself was having a bit of difficulty with bullies at school. Conclusion : Me being bullied causes Israelis and Palestinians to kill each other!
Come on, this is really, really trivial science theory. What you need to do is show that an increase in Israeli oppression corresponds to an increase in terrorism, preferably with a time lag. Possibly there is such a correlation, it's a perfectly reasonable theory, but data for one period is just not relevant.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:St. Yogi would you then say the Jews would be justified in suicide bombing Romans if they had continued to occupy Jerusalem after kicking the jews out in an incredibly bloody siege?
I do not believe that suicide bombings against civilians are ever justified. But I certainly wouldn't make the jews out to be the villains in that scenario. Except the ones doing the suicide bombings. They would be villains.
And the scenario is incomplete if you don't also add that the Romans continued to control the jews ability to travel, their ability to trade with the outside world, their ability to be outside their homes whenever they want to, etc.
quote: Right. You've shown that two things happened at the same time. Well done. In the same period, I myself was having a bit of difficulty with bullies at school. Conclusion : Me being bullied causes Israelis and Palestinians to kill each other!
Come on, this is really, really trivial science theory. What you need to do is show that an increase in Israeli oppression corresponds to an increase in terrorism, preferably with a time lag. Possibly there is such a correlation, it's a perfectly reasonable theory, but data for one period is just not relevant.
What I posted just shows the systematic way that the Israelis abuse the Palestinians. That is a fact. Whether this is a cause of terrorism or not is up to each and everyone here to decide. My opinion: Yes it is.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: Hamas has moderate and pragmatic politicians, and if we had been able to treat them in a respectful manner, I believe that the militant wing would have stayed dormant, and none of this would have ever happened.
No, Yogi, they don't. It is a terrorist group that has the extermination of Israel as one of its fundamental principles. "Militant wing", my arse.
The Arabs have been launching missiles into Israel from Gaza ever since the day we finished abandoning it and they burned our synagogues to the ground and danced on them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
For those who can't read Norwegian, a quick translation of the main point :
quote:I believe the blockade of Hamas has had two terrible effects, in addition to dramatic suffering for millions of people : It has stimulated the extremists' activity, and it has made Israel feel they've been given 'a free hand' with respect to the Palestinians. That has helped along these brutal bombardments in Gaza.
What, he thinks the fanatics would stop because the moderates (the traitors, as they would see it) talk to the enemy? The thing he doesn't realise (nor you, apparently) is this : The Palestinians have legitimate grievances that could be solved by negotiations. That's fine. But some Palestinians see the mere existence of Israel (or even Jews!) as a legitimate grievance, and they can't be negotiated with. Further, until they are reduced to impotence, the real problems the Palestinians have can't be solved either, because the fanatics will do their best to sabotage any agreement, in order to have broad support for their actions!
Gah, I'm sounding more and more like Lisa. Let me just point out that this kind of thing is what happens when a government doesn't have a monopoly on violence. This here is the natural effect of conceding that people have a right both to unlimited weaponry and hating whoever they like. You sure you want that to happen where you live?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: No, Yogi, they don't. It is a terrorist group that has the extermination of Israel as one of its fundamental principles. "Militant wing", my arse.
The Arabs have been launching missiles into Israel from Gaza ever since the day we finished abandoning it and they burned our synagogues to the ground and danced on them.
Yes, Lisa, they do. It is true what you say, that they don't recognise Israel in their charter, but, and you may disagree with me here, Hamas is still an organisation built up of individuals, some moderate, some quite extreme. Those that participated in the elections, the politicians were made up of a group of individuals that were fairly moderate. Hamas has shown itself to be fairly pragmatic by halting their terrorist activities to participate in the democratic system, and I think that if the international community had given them their support, over time, the charter would be changed and they would recognise the state of Israel.
KoM:
quote: What, he thinks the fanatics would stop because the moderates (the traitors, as they would see it) talk to the enemy? The thing he doesn't realise (nor you, apparently) is this : The Palestinians have legitimate grievances that could be solved by negotiations. That's fine. But some Palestinians see the mere existence of Israel (or even Jews!) as a legitimate grievance, and they can't be negotiated with. Further, until they are reduced to impotence, the real problems the Palestinians have can't be solved either, because the fanatics will do their best to sabotage any agreement, in order to have broad support for their actions!
I agree, there are some Paestinians that are extremists and will not under any circumstances recognise Israel or even consider peace as an option. I do not support these people. But I do not think that they can be reduced to impotence by military action. What we need to do is reward the good behavior, and at the same time not collectively punish the Palestinian people for what these extremists do.
quote:Gah, I'm sounding more and more like Lisa. Let me just point out that this kind of thing is what happens when a government doesn't have a monopoly on violence. This here is the natural effect of conceding that people have a right both to unlimited weaponry and hating whoever they like. You sure you want that to happen where you live?
I agree with you completely, and I think you misunderstand my position. I DO NOT THINK THE TERRORIST VIOLENCE IS JUSTIFIED IN ANY WAY. But I do think that Israel has the responsibility here to end the violence, being the occupant, and the stronger part.
The Israeli war on terrorism does nothing more than ensure Palestinian support for terrorism, while at the same time making the lives of the Palestinians worse.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a question I'd like to see opinions on. What exactly is the difference between "capturing" and "kidnapping?"
When the IDF takes members of Hezbollah and puts them in prison, that's capturing enemy combatants. When Hezbollah takes two members of the IDF, it's kidnapping. I don't really understand the difference. I think you're seeing a pro-Israeli stance every time someone uses the word "kidnapped" in response to the situation.
Yogi, so far as the checkpoints are concerned, what do you really expect Israel to do? They know where the source of the attacks is coming from, and if they have to choose between letting long lines for Palestinians, and the safety of their own people, they choose long lines, and I don't really blame them. Politically, I have to hand it to the terrorists, no matter what they do to further the plight of the people they claim to protect, Israel almost ALWAYS gets the blame for it. Whoever said it in this thread first was right, Israel is prosecuting the war of public opinion horribly in this conflict. I don't really think they care, but I think they could end the conflict sooner by fighting and winning that particular battle.
Hezbollah's new Khaybar rockets have me concerned, I wonder where they are getting them from. Most intelligence agencies don't believe they came from Iran, so I'm wondering if they are actually some homegrown variant, which together with what appears to be an underestimation of Hezbollah's capabilities, makes for a very scary picture indeed.
I'm curious as to how much progress the IDF thinks has been made thus far. I don't know if I'd believe them any more than Hezbollah (who I certainly don't believe), but I'm still curious as to the answer.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Yogi, so far as the checkpoints are concerned, what do you really expect Israel to do? They know where the source of the attacks is coming from, and if they have to choose between letting long lines for Palestinians, and the safety of their own people, they choose long lines, and I don't really blame them.
It's a hard question to answer. I don't know. I do know that it's making the lives of hundred thousands of Palestinians harder.
I wish I had the answer to everything in this conflict, I understand the pressure the Israelis live under, and they have my sympathy for that, but they are not the victims in this conflict, and I'm sick and tired of the American media portraying them as such.
Edit: It's getting pretty late here, and I have to get up and go to work tomorrow. I'm off to bed to listen to Simon and Garfunkel and dream about peace! Good night!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:What exactly do you think Israel does have the right to do?
What they "have a right" to do is a much more complex question than it would seem at face value. What to they have a right to do as a sovereign national power? What do they have a right to do as a people surrounded by potential enemies? What do they have a right to do ethically? What do they have a right to do under the Geneva Conventions? What do they have a right to do according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I could get into many long paragraphs that almost no one would read shortly before the forum got locked, but you'll forgive me that I don't quite have the energy right now. Let me answer a somewhat more pragmatic question.
Some see the strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon as using the capture of Israeli troops as a flimsy pretext for doing something that Israel has been itching to do for some time anyway. I'm not saying that's how I see it, but a non-trivial amount of public opinion in nations in and near the Middle East does see things that way. If Israel truly desires to disarm Hezbollah rather than merely be seen making decisive (and possibly fruitless) action against their enemies, they need to commit more ground troops to the location of personelle and munitions. It would appear that air strikes are coming to the limit of what they can do to harm Hezbollah, and the harm done to civilians by the ongoing airstrikes seems to me to be causing more harm to the Israeli cause in the international community than strategic interest warrants.
It's easy to play "armchair general", and I recognize that committing more ground forces is also likely to create a long slog and likely further civilian casualties. However, it is likely the only way to even come close to genuine Hezbollah disarmament.
I'm not going to pretend that issues surrounding Israel have easy answers or black-and-white simplicities. It's just not the case.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hey don't worry man, I'm not really into trying to trap people- I don't get my Hatrack kicks off scoring debate points against people. I honestly was just hoping for an elaboration of what you thought. I had hoped my later post cleared up what I was going for, but since it didn't thanks for being willing to post despite your misgivings Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Hey don't worry man, I'm not really into trying to trap people- I don't get my Hatrack kicks off scoring debate points against people. I honestly was just hoping for an elaboration of what you thought. I had hoped my later post cleared up what I was going for, but since it didn't thanks for being willing to post despite your misgivings
I really didn't think you were, BQT. I just honestly don't have the energy to post on that particular topic and all its subtleties in detail, and then defend every line of a long post on a contraversial subject right now.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Lyrhawn:
- posted July 31, 2006 03:09 PM Profile for Lyrhawn Email Lyrhawn Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote I have a question I'd like to see opinions on. What exactly is the difference between "capturing" and "kidnapping?"
When the IDF takes members of Hezbollah and puts them in prison, that's capturing enemy combatants. When Hezbollah takes two members of the IDF, it's kidnapping. I don't really understand the difference. I think you're seeing a pro-Israeli stance every time someone uses the word "kidnapped" in response to the situation.
I think the difference is that the IDF is a state military while Hezbollah is a terrorist groups. Non-government groups or individuals kidnap people, while governments arrest or capture people.
No conspiracy theory/men in black derailments, please.
At any rate, this dosen't sound like a "white people forage, black people loot" kind of situation. That semantic difference I would point to as evidence of bias (assuming it's true), while the kidnapped/catptured dichotomy seems reasonable enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Hey don't worry man, I'm not really into trying to trap people- I don't get my Hatrack kicks off scoring debate points against people. I honestly was just hoping for an elaboration of what you thought. I had hoped my later post cleared up what I was going for, but since it didn't thanks for being willing to post despite your misgivings
I really didn't think you were, BQT. I just honestly don't have the energy to post on that particular topic and all its subtleties in detail, and then defend every line of a long post on a contraversial subject right now.
Then you sir do not belong on hatrack!
TBH I know what you mean, I've gone into arguements with a huge response and then sobbed in dismay when every single point was responded to by at least 1-2 paragraphs, looked at the clock (15 minutes til work ends), and I think, "Can I pull this off?"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. A response like that would have a dozen points, and you'd have a dozen posters wanting to talk (or debate) each one. Sometimes it just takes too much.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: It is true what you say, that they don't recognise Israel in their charter,
There's a huge difference between "not recognizing" and proclaiming an intent to destroy. I can't figure out if you're being disingenuous or whether you're really that naive.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: Hamas has shown itself to be fairly pragmatic by halting their terrorist activities to participate in the democratic system,
They did no such thing. They did not stop their terrorist activities, but continued them even while they used the ballot box to take over the PA.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: and I think that if the international community had given them their support, over time, the charter would be changed and they would recognise the state of Israel.
Sure. Like Fatah did. They are unrepentant and Nazi-like thugs who intentionally murder innocents for personal gain.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: I agree with you completely, and I think you misunderstand my position. I DO NOT THINK THE TERRORIST VIOLENCE IS JUSTIFIED IN ANY WAY. But I do think that Israel has the responsibility here to end the violence, being the occupant, and the stronger part.
We are not "the occupant". To repeat what has been said here over and over, if they were to lay down their arms, this conflict would end right then. If we were to do the same, we'd be dead meat.
quote:Originally posted by St. Yogi: The Israeli war on terrorism does nothing more than ensure Palestinian support for terrorism, while at the same time making the lives of the Palestinians worse.
And jails are the cause of crime. You live in a topsy-turvey world.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not inclined to say "a plague on both your houses", but neither am I incilined to say "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself" is some kind of trump card under which any and all actions are justifiable.
Israel does not have a right to exist - in fact, no state has a right to exist, not even America. Instead, the people governed by the state have the right to eliminate or change governments that no longer represent them. The people can create, alter, control, and eliminate states.
The fundamental problem is that Israel conceives itself as a Jewish state, yet rules over lands filled with many non-Jewish people. If the government of Israel cannot represent the non-Jewish population, then it really doesn't have a right to exist in its current form, even if some segment of the population in that region wants it to. This is one big problem with all religious states - from Israel to Iran.
[ July 31, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: I have a question I'd like to see opinions on. What exactly is the difference between "capturing" and "kidnapping?"
When the IDF takes members of Hezbollah and puts them in prison, that's capturing enemy combatants. When Hezbollah takes two members of the IDF, it's kidnapping. I don't really understand the difference. I think you're seeing a pro-Israeli stance every time someone uses the word "kidnapped" in response to the situation.
I think the difference is that the IDF is a state military while Hezbollah is a terrorist groups. Non-government groups or individuals kidnap people, while governments arrest or capture people.
No conspiracy theory/men in black derailments, please.
At any rate, this dosen't sound like a "white people forage, black people loot" kind of situation. That semantic difference I would point to as evidence of bias (assuming it's true), while the kidnapped/catptured dichotomy seems reasonable enough.
I really don't see the difference. It's war. Capturing enemy combatants and demanding the release of your own men in a prisoner exchange has been done for centuries. They were captured during a battle, or in the case of the first soldier that was captured, in a raid on an enemy outpost.
For the civilian that was taken and killed, kidnapped seems perfectly correct to say. But when you're talking about soldiers versus soldiers, captured seems the correct word, not kidnapped. Hezbollah is PART of the Lebanese government, and they control their own slice of territory while maintaining a separate leadership for themselves. They also provide goods and services for the people in their territory. Many would argue that makes them an undeclared state of their own, especially given a written charter, a flag, etc. etc things usually associated with state governments.
Tresopax -
I'd counter that by saying every state has the right to exist, but none of them have the guarantee to exist. Maybe it's just a semantic difference, but I see something real there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Priviledge to Exist? That Priviledge is kept through your own efforts?
I dunno.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well now, it's not obvious either way. (For what it's worth, no comparison to current regimes is intended in what follows.) If all states have the right to exist, did Nazi Germany? If none do, why was invading Poland a bad thing? If only some do, who decides?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
How about all nations have the right to self-determination...? Can we agree to that?
N.B. talking about nationalities, not governments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say both Nazi Germany and Poland had a right to exist, but as Poland had no guarantee to exist, it was up to their own actions to determine whether or not they would exist. Since no one stopped Germany, they ceased to exist. Had they been able to stop Germany, they would have kept on existing. In the same way, Hamas and Hezbollah have the right to exist as the head of national governments.
And when they attack the civilians of a foreign nation, they still don't surrender their right to exist, they just make it much, much harder for them to guarantee their own existance in the face of enemy reprisal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: How about all nations have the right to self-determination...? Can we agree to that?
N.B. talking about nationalities, not governments.
Well, it's plainly not an unlimited right. There's no right to decide to wipe out another nationality. Deciding that only your own nationality can live in a given area is kind of iffy too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:St. Yogi: The Israeli war on terrorism does nothing more than ensure Palestinian support for terrorism, while at the same time making the lives of the Palestinians worse.
quote:StarLisa: And jails are the cause of crime. You live in a topsy-turvey world.
Here, he's actually broaching on a point. The world is, after all, topsy-turvy. The response by Israel, despite being provoked by attacks on civilians, is indeed working against them, because it ends up killing the civilians and destroying the infrastructure around where hez chooses to nest. And this makes everyone incredibly angry, because there are pictures of dead Lebanese babies being broadcast realtime to the world.
Israel can protest all day long. "But they hide in civilian populations! And fire rockets at our cities! What are we supposed to do?"
Fall into a region-based catch-22, apparently. Especially if they sneak in a little communal punishment or gratuitous ordinance use from time to time.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The fundamental problem is that Israel conceives itself as a Jewish state, yet rules over lands filled with many non-Jewish people. If the government of Israel cannot represent the non-Jewish population, then it really doesn't have a right to exist in its current form, even if some segment of the population in that region wants it to. This is one big problem with all religious states - from Israel to Iran.
No. The fundamental problem is that Arabs in the middle east - outside of Israel - don't want a Jewish state to exist. Israel occupied some territory outside of its 1967 borders solely to protect itself from invading armies seeking to drive Israel into the sea. At Camp David, Israel offered to return nearly all of that territory back in exchange for peace - but that offer was rejected without even so much as a counter-proposal.
Also, the Arabls and other non-Jews living within Israel enjoy more political, economic and religious freedom than most, if not all, others in the Middle East. In fact, except for the fact that Arabs in Israel are within the minority, they have exactly the same political, economic and religious rights as everyon else.
The problem, therefore, is not that Israel governs non-Jews. The problem is that Israel exists, and for many within the region, that simply is so intolerable that murder becomes justified in their minds.
I think Israel could withdraw completely from the occupied territories, and agree to some shared control over Jerusalem, and that still wouldn't end the problem. There would still be terrorism and attacks on Israel, forcing Israel to reoccupy territory for its own defense, forcing Israel to fight back against terrorists hiding among civilians, and forcing Israel, in its own defense, to endanger the lives of civilians.
It's a vicious cycle that will never end until one of two things happens: Israel is destroyed (or gives up), or the Arabs in the Middle East decide to leave in peace along side Israel, and choose to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Israel will never let the former happen. And unfortunately, there are too many forces arrayed against Israel to allow the latter to happen - including but not limited to Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
[ August 01, 2006, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well - at some point, even the most intractable religious conflicts do end, because one side accepts defeat. Consider the Thirty Years' War, every bit as nasty as the current conflict - and it might be better named the Eighty Years' War, at that, because the break in the fighting around 1600-1620 was just that - an armed truce. It did eventually end, with the Catholics, essentially, giving up and agreeing to let people be heretics if they really wanted to, and the Protestants, conversely, accepting a splintered church. Granted, Germany's population dropped by 33% in the process, but the thing is, the fighting did come to an end without either side wiping out the other.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well, it's plainly not an unlimited right. There's no right to decide to wipe out another nationality. Deciding that only your own nationality can live in a given area is kind of iffy too."
I'm sorry, KoM, I wasn't talking about other-determination. I explicitly said "self-determination."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right. And right now, I'm going to self-determine where my fist goes, so you'd better get your nose out of the way.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
KoM - From Israel's perspective, the fighting can come to an end without either side wiping out the other. All Israel requires is for Arabs and all others in the region to decide to co-exist with Israel in peace - without terrorizing Israel and without supporting those who do.
The committment to one side wiping out the other is a committment embraced by Israel's enemies.
[ August 01, 2006, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Here is a stab at answering TrapperKeeper's original question.
Many good, peace loving people have a hard time believing that there is an exceedingly large population of Arabs and others in the Middle East that cannot tolerate the existence of Israel. Many good, peace loving people have a hard time understanding how a large number of people can be so ruthless, or are willing to support those who commit atrocities just because they cannot tolerate Israel's existence.
Because the foregoing is so difficult to believe, a natural response may be to assume that the real cause for the problem is that a weaker people are resorting to desperate means to fight for their own rights. Such a belief may be easier for many to believe than the truth - that a large group of people embrace a truly evil and dysfunctional attitude toward other humans and the dignity of human life.
Of course, if the world does not correctly understand the problem, the problem will be impossible to solve.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No. The fundamental problem is that Arabs in the middle east - outside of Israel - don't want a Jewish state to exist.
I suspect Arabic states would have no problem if Israel took land in Antarctica for a state, or land that is not occupied by people already. I think that for most Middle Eastern peoples, the reason they don't want a Jewish state to exist there is because of the particular territory that Israel chose to put their state upon, and because there are Arabic people living on that land. It is concern for those people, and a desire to prevent them from being forced to live under Jewish rule, that I suspect is at the heart of the controversy.
I am aware that there are groups that would prefer to see radical Muslim states across the whole region. However, I don't think these represent the majority view of those countries any more than radical neoconservatives represent the majority view of Americans. I think it is a radical minority viewpoint that has been given support because they can attach their cause to the more legitimate concerns of the region. Without the Palestinian cause and other more legitimate quarrells with Israel, I suspect support for those radical viewpoints would largely collapse.
quote:Because the foregoing is so difficult to believe, a natural response may be to assume that the real cause for the problem is that a weaker people are resorting to desperate means to fight for their own rights.
When Israel gives that weaker people their rights, and if the fighting still continues after that, then I will believe you. But until then, I don't think it makes sense to assign radical, irrational motives to the Arabic peoples when there are far more rational motives that would explain the same behavior. It's like saying "Peace activists don't care about peace. They just hate Bush!"
It should be noted that making this mistake in assigning motives is having serious consequences for both Israel and America. If you fail to recognize that the enemy only has support because of the harm you are doing to their people, then you also fail to recognize that starting wars that harm their people even more will only increase the support for your enemy. Israel seems to be experiencing this mistake as we speak.
[ August 01, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I suspect Arabic states would have no problem if Israel took land in Antarctica for a state, or land that is not occupied by people already. I think that for most Middle Eastern peoples, the reason they don't want a Jewish state to exist there is because of the particular territory that Israel chose to put their state upon, and because there are Arabic people living on that land.
Do you contend that Jews forced Arabs from their land? If so, what is the support or evidence for your position?
Were not Arabs assigned their own land at the time Israel was formed?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When Israel gives that weaker people their rights, and if the fighting still continues after that, then I will believe you.
How exactly has Israel taken away anybody’s rights?
Israel only occupied what is called “Palestinian Territory” after winning a war in which Israel’s enemies sought to destroy Israel – Israel occupied that territory for self-defense – it needed (and probably still needs) to occupy much of that territory to adequately defend itself against further attacks. But most of that territory has been governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.
At Camp David, Israel offered to withdraw from nearly all of occupied territory, but that was not good enough.
Israel already withdrew from Gaza, but Gaza has been used as a launch pad for firing missiles at Israeli towns.
In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But until then, I don't think it makes sense to assign radical, irrational motives to the Arabic peoples when there are far more rational motives that would explain the same behavior.
If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected? If they wanted a Palestinian State and for Israel to withdraw back to its 1967 borders, then shouldn’t Israel’s offer have ended the conflict?
Try a thought experiment: Israel returns entirely to the 1967 borders, and consents to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Would peace then ensue?
Answer: I think, no. If you disagree, then why was the offer made at Camp David rejected? Why after Israel was formed, did all of the Arabic nations surrounding Israel attack and try to drive Israel into the sea? What has changed since then that makes you believe that a majority of Arabic people capable of controlling the zealots in their midst wish now to recognize Israel’s existence?
Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians. This would, of course, lead to war all over again.
I know you disagree with that – for the very reason I suspect. It is difficult for you to assign an irrational motive to a large group of people. But I think if you study the applicable history and what is actually happening, you will find that one side is, in fact, irrational and/or evil – or at least completely dysfunctional.
Maybe there is a sizeable portion of the Arabic population that is moderate and would consent to peaceful co-existence with Israel. But that group, to the extent it exists in any meaningful numbers, is indeed weak. It is completely overwhelmed by the extremists who effectively govern. The situation on the Arabic side is very dysfunctional.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Do you contend that Jews forced Arabs from their land? If so, what is the support or evidence for your position?
quote:In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
The right to a government that represents them, without forcing them to move.
quote:If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected?
I can't say for sure, but I suspect it was because the above criteria was not fulfilled to the degree the Paletinians thought necessary. Withdrawing to old borders does not necessarily bring about fair treatment of the Palestinians.
quote:Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians.
It is the last two lines where I think you are mistaken. Israel is not "forced" to do anything - it is not forced to hold foreign territories and/or curtail the rights of Palestinian and other peoples for long periods of time.
And while Islamic/Arabic moderates may not speak out against terrorist groups so much, I suspect that with a solution to the Palestinian dilemma, moderate support for terrorism would collapse. And without that support, terrorist groups will be able to achieve little.
Terrorism itself, included Hamas, will not go away no matter what anyone does for the time being. Israel can capture all the buffer territories it wants, but they will still be just as much in danger as the U.S. or any other country is. It is only a matter of time before terrorists can get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It is probably also only a matter of time before they can get rockets that fire from far enough away that buffer territories won't matter. But on the other hand, without the support of large populations or other nations, these terrorists are no true threat to the existence of Israel any more than they are to the existence of the U.S.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Do you contend that Jews forced Arabs from their land? If so, what is the support or evidence for your position?
I read the information you cited and found nothing indicating that Jews forced Arabs from their land.
The information you cited, however, did state that Arabs voluntarily fled Israel and that Jews were forced out of Arab lands.
quote: Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus. Many historians suggest that the Palestinians fled due to orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return.[8] Moreover, Israel offered many of the Palestinians an opportunity to live and take citizenship in Israel, but many refused.
quote: Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:In other words, to end this conflict, what must Israel give this “weaker” people that it hasn’t already given them, or offered to give them?
The right to a government that represents them, without forcing them to move.
Specifically, what has Israel done to prevent people from having a government that represents them without forcing them to move?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If that is the case, why was Israel’s offer at Camp David rejected?
I can't say for sure, but I suspect it was because the above criteria was not fulfilled to the degree the Paletinians thought necessary. Withdrawing to old borders does not necessarily bring about fair treatment of the Palestinians.
Let’s discuss specifics. Why exactly was the “above criteria not fulfilled to the degree the Palestinians thought necessary”? After setting out the specifics, do you then contend that the Palestinians’ cause is justified, and if so, why? What specifically does Israel have to do to bring about “fair treatment of the Palestinians”?
I know that what was offered at Camp David was not good enough, but I can’t think of any just, good reason why not. I can’t thing of any good reason why a failure to reach such a settlement then triggered the second intifada (which included such atrocities as blowing up teenagers in dance clubs). If you can’t either, then perhaps there was no just reason why the Camp David offer was not good enough.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Under my hypothetical, Hezbollah and Hamas would not be satisfied. Islamic Jihad would not be satisfied. Al Qaeda would not be satisfied. Syria and Iran would not be satisfied. The Islamic/Arabic “moderates” would not speak out against the foregoing for fear of being murdered or accused of supporting Jews and the United States. The terror would continue. And Israel would be forced, in self-defense, to re-occupy and to attack terrorist positions entrenched within civilian populations – and Israel again would have to endanger the lives of civilians.
It is the last two lines where I think you are mistaken. Israel is not "forced" to do anything - it is not forced to hold foreign territories and/or curtail the rights of Palestinian and other peoples for long periods of time.
Israel is “forced,” or rather compelled, to occupy territory as a legitimate and rational means for self-defense. After all, it has been at war and on hostile terms with nearly all of its neighbors since it was formed – neighbors who during several wars tried to destroy Israel. Under those circumstances, does Israel have a right to occupy territory if doing so is reasonably necessary to defend itself? Must it give up that territory without a guarantee of peace from all of its neighbors?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Terrorism itself, included Hamas, will not go away no matter what anyone does for the time being. Israel can capture all the buffer territories it wants, but they will still be just as much in danger as the U.S. or any other country is. It is only a matter of time before terrorists can get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It is probably also only a matter of time before they can get rockets that fire from far enough away that buffer territories won't matter. But on the other hand, without the support of large populations or other nations, these terrorists are no true threat to the existence of Israel any more than they are to the existence of the U.S.
Just so I am clear, does the following correctly state your position? (i) Israel should withdraw unilaterally from all of the disputed territories, even without any guaranty of peace from Hamas or any others of Israel’s enemies; (ii) Israel then should reasonably anticipate that the Arabic populations that support the radicals and terrorists stop doing so; and (iii) without such support, there will no longer be a true threat to the existence of Israel.
Based upon the entire history of the state of Israel since its formation, including recent offers of peace made by Israel at Camp David, do you really believe that the foregoing will solve the problem?
You say it will, I suppose, because you believe that the majority of the Arabic people in and surrounding Israel (a majority sufficient to actually give Israel peace) are good, just people who ultimately are willing to accept Israel provided they can live in peace. Can you show me any instance in recent history that supports this belief? I can show you many instances that refute such a position.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: KoM - From Israel's perspective, the fighting can come to an end without either side wiping out the other. All Israel requires is for Arabs and all others in the region to decide to co-exist with Israel in peace - without terrorizing Israel and without supporting those who do.
The committment to one side wiping out the other is a committment embraced by Israel's enemies.
True; my point is, there are examples in history where just such a commitment has been abandoned because of sufficient defeat in the field. Granted, those were not times when every fanatic could cause immense damage because of easy access to explosives and small arms; but still.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)