Is Peace possible in the Middle east?

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=183110
Senate Floor Statement of Senator Inhofe - Monday, March 4, 2002
A very interesting read.

My own opinion is YES - if both sides would ever agree upon anything.


Now the artcle --

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Inhofe

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Monday, March 4, 2002


I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.

I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 1967 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel.

I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace.

When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process.

If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East--that is us--all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door.

I have some observations to make about that. But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it.
Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years.

It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have.

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology.

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem.

The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.

The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917.

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.''

In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally.
It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world.

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today.

We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks.

We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.

No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.
In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ..... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''

That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank.

This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land.

Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, ``Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.

He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting?

A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion.

Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details.

They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived.

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, ``No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. ..... They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.

These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.




 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
The region and people have been engaged in warfare for 1000 years. I doubt it will end anytime soon.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: jrenz
The region and people have been engaged in warfare for thousands of years. I doubt it will end anytime soon.

Fixed

The weapons may change but the conflict never will.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
So what's the topic? Are we talking about whether peace is possible in the Middle East or whether or not Israel is right to feel entitled to the land? The "message" is clearly supposed to be some groundbreaking idea, but it's just more of the same crap we've heard for years from both sides...give us what we want and we can have peace. Especially lately, Israel supporters are so concerned with what Israel is entitled to and justified in doing that they seem to have a total disconnect with the idea of achieving peace. The assault on Lebanon, for example, is ONLY being discussed in terms of whether or not Israel is "justified"...the impact it might have on peace in the Middle East is treated as a side issue of little importance.

This discussion has the same problem, it goes into great detail as to whether or not Israel "deserves" the land and then forms policy around the conclusion. That's just stupid...at least it is if the objective is peace in the Middle East. The smart way to approach the issues over there is for Israel and the US to determine what it will take to bring peace to the region (if that's even possible) and THEN decide if the cost is worth it. Way too many people are getting caught up in being as stubborn as possible, totally loosing sight of the end objective here.

That's not to say that I think Israel should give anything up if they don't want to...but I think we'd do a lot better if we approached the issue in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East instead of making sure Israel gets what they are "entitled" to. This is really just a case of missing the forest for the trees...the debate points should be analyzed in terms of movement towards a peace process everyone can live with, anyone making points about Israel's supposed entitlement is missing the point.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
No---in a word-no.----------Israel nor any other nation has no such historical claim.

Israel was given the land by the UN in 1948----what they took in the 1967 war is and remains illegitimate---and long term----Israel won't even retain what they have unless they can live with their neighbors.

I note your little diatribe said not word one about the right to return----which is what this conflict is still all about.---all else is aftermath.

But to explain---for those not up to speed on the matter----in 1948---when the UN established Israel---there was an indiginous Israelie and Palistinian population living there. And when the neighboring Arab states attacked Israel---making many areas the front lines in the dispute-----both Israelie and Palistinian civilians were forced to leave their homes and seek safety
away from the fighting. When the dust settled and Israel won---the non-combatent civilians returned to reclaim their property and homes---those returming civilians that were Israelie were welcomed back. Those that were Palistinians were told their homes were now state property since they fled.

So sorry Irate Leaf-----I don't endorce out and out theivery---nor would the bulk of the US population if they knew the truth. Not saying the other side are angels either---but until Israel addresses the right to return honestly-----there will be no peace. With many Palistinians now being second class citizens in the land of their birth.

In terms of historical claims---I do not dispute that various Israelie tribes pushed out native inhabitants long long ago---history is full of such conflicts and the resulting fleeing of prior inhabitants not militarily strong enough to retain the land---but I am far more concerned about the rights of living people.---be they Israelie or Palistinian.
 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
We both know and understand that if we so away with all the accusations and inuendo and talk good or bad about iether side what this all boils down to is LAND. Plain and simple. But along with land comes this supposed phrase --right to exist. As well as another word - recognize.
If we stay away from throewing accusations such as they kill children or they destroy innocent bystanders lives. Then we stick to just these items. Peace is very possible providing a right to exist as well as recognition takes place. As well as land for Palestinians to also live.

You see for there to ever be a lasting Ppeace all accusations as well as autrocities on both sides are going to have to be forgotten...never to be brought up.

All they will do is cloud the main issues.

For peace to happen(if at all possible) a very narrow agenda will have to be agreed upon and all parties will have to learn to trust each other.

But I believe that can only happen if alot of things that would cloud the issue of peace are- well- permanently forgotten in the interest of peace.
shalom!

 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,102
744
126
By some of his definitions, I would think that Native Americans have more right to this land than we do.
 

Talcite

Senior member
Apr 18, 2006
629
0
0
I really have to say that was the worst argument I've ever read. I'm Canadian and a catholic so I sort of understand where the american perspective is coming from, but oh wow.

1: archaeological evidence doesn't mean crap. If you lose your country, you've lost it. It's a reason to fight for it again, but not a reason that they deserve it back!

2: It's alot like #1 shouldn't it? archaeology should be under history isn't it? I'd have to say this guy was shovelling the bullshit so he could get the "perfect number"

3: They got a country because they can be farmers? That's hardly a good reason. If people got land for their merit, and especially if for their agricultural merit, then the world would be a very different place today.

4. Lots of people got slaughtered and abused in history. Heck look what's happening in Darfur. Why arn't you giving them California yet? You guys just lowered the minimum wage of tipped employees to 2.13 an hour. I'm 18, a student with no degree, and I still make 4x more than that. That has GOT to be human rights abuse. Give them NY.

5 and 6: they're pretty much the same thing. Oh look, he got 1 closer to the number 7. Oh surprise surprise... I think in number 6 I saw a glimpse of something. It's the only US foothold in the middle east? Maybe that's why they're getting US funding, US weapons and US support in every issue. It's not really a surprise israel goes with the US in every decision. Without US support, I doubt israel would last 3 weeks in the middle east as it is today.

7. I mentioned earlier that I'm a catholic. I'm just not the fundamentalist bible-belt christian type. I can't believe people would possibly go by every word of the bible. The early bible was oral tradition... There's no way that it's the "word of god come down from heaven by divine intervention." Not to mention we didn't have printing presses for the longest time, so the copying errors could be horrendous. And it's also translated from greek, and we all know how well translation goes. And while i'm on this tangent.. Did you know that since the bible was god's word on earth by divine intervention... he spoke greek? Greek is god's language. why arn't you speaking greek yet?

Oh look, he's gotten 7 reasons. That must mean his argument is perfect. Everyone drop your opposition to this topic, bow down and ask for forgiveness for your numerous transgressions to the one true christian god. Apparently he wants israel to exist too, so stop fighting palestine and lebanon.

I know i've probably insulted a whole lot of americans, even non-republican bible-belt types. I'm sorry. I just get very worked up about these kind of arguments.

And incase you're wondering what my take on this all is... Well I'd have to say israel can exist sure... but only because it already exists. And they have to make a genuine attempt at peace, not the bombing of civilians and UN observation posts in attempts to stop terrorists. If they can't pull it together... well maybe they should just give it all up and try again later.

edited for grammar
 

Talcite

Senior member
Apr 18, 2006
629
0
0
Yeah. Peace exists if we're all dead. It's true. No one's fighting anymore. Lets all nuke ourselves
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Isolation would be the best policy to keep the rest of the world out of all their conflicts, but do I believe there will be peace in the ME? Not in this lifetime. They've had thousands of years to develope, as a region, but yet they didn't.

If the rest of the world just lets them be, maybe they can stop using the excuse that they're pissed at the rest of the world. The killing will continue over there, with, or without us. (USA)

All fine and good, but oops, the damn oil...whatever would we do, without the oil? :shocked:
 

Talcite

Senior member
Apr 18, 2006
629
0
0
I can't agree with you there compuwiz. They developed alot. Our number are from the arabic system lol. They developed, but just not recently. That's all. While the rest of us were having a blast and going to war, and developing new technology... the ME was just sitting back.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Peace? Yes, but more of a long cease-fire than real peace. Take Egypt's relations with Israel, for example.
That will only happen once the recent wave of Islamic fundementalism is brought under control

In any case, I believe the true cause of grief here is the international community who stopped Israel from having a complete victory in its wars.
This what made the conflict last so long. Were Israel to punish the Arab states who attacked it like they deserved, there could be peace long ago. But with the UN sticking its nose and demanding cease fires, the Arabs never get to pay for their actions like they should have.
Israel should have won and made peace on its own terms. The international community puts the victor and the losers of the ME wars on a level field which is just wrong.

Take Syria for example. Why should Israel give them the Golan Heights back? Syria behaved aggressively and lost, it has to pay the price.
Or the Palestinans. With no International community to go and cry to, they would have accepted whatever peace deal Israel had to offer instead of their hopeless bloodshed.

It's yet another case of political correctness leading to more victims and bloodshed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
A good part of the Israelie conflict derives from the fact that Israel has a kick ass military---and is might is right---then Israel is all right. But the sad side effect is that Israel
is able to deny any fundemental and legitimate arguements the other side has---see the previously stated might is right if you don't believe me.

But somewhat the bully test is-----if they can dish it out---can they take it in the same spirit--------and Israel is now flunking that test in the eyes of the entire world.

Granted its a huge crisis when a terrorist organization---from within the borders of a another country starts pegging a rein of missle on Israel---which is no different from
what the entire lot of the Palistinian people has been for the past 50 years or so----and the latest round of payback on the part of Hezbollah does not even begin to even the score.
As Israel has engaged in similar brutish tactics with inpunity for many years against the Palistinians.---except they used tanks and planes against equally defenseless civilians.

But now there is a sea change---for the first time in recent history---the fairly short range rocket has fallen into terrorists hands---and now Israel finds to its dismay---that its vaunted military is powerless to stop that technology---for now the favored launching site will be Southern Labanon---which has a basket case of a government--due in no small part to Israelie
past occupation.---in future the rockets range will get longer---and soon they will be coming from every surrounding country and from ships at sea.---not state sponsored---but terrorist sponsored.---and financed by oil money and popular hatred.

And Israel has totally bungled this present crisis---at first even the Arab states condemmed Hezbollah---and there were opportunities to get international troops into Southern Lebanon.
Instead Isael mistakenly opted to punish totally innocent Lebanese civilians in great numbers---resulting in arab hero worshiping of Hezbollah---Israelie world condemation---and now Israel is more united than ever on a mutual delusion of superority that can only lead to self distruction----as they rachet up world hatred to new highs.

Maybe its finally time for Israel to wake up---smell the coffee---and realise they better be more reasonable to their neighbors---their military hegmony has done come to an end--and they better start addressing a new reality. ---what the UN givith--is also someting the UN can taketh away---and the present bahavoir of Isreal makes a compelling arguement for it.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Let's set things straight. Israel was under the threat of rockets since the beginning of Hizbullah in the 80's. The inhabitants of the north of Israel are used to it.
That's exactly the reason Israel maintained a strip inside southern Lebanon. Until it evacuated this strip and southern Lebanon, Hizbullah did not have long range rockets nor was it able to fire much into Israel.
The retreat of Israel was a catalyst for the Hizbullah's arming.

Hizbullah is losing. Israel is pushing Hizbullah farther and farther into Southern Lebanona and destroying its infrastructure on a daily basis. Granted, this is not simple as they had uninterrupted huge backing and support from Iran and Syria for 6 years now. It will take time and will have its toll in form of casualities, and yes, also civil casualities. When you operate from within civilians, like Hizbullah does, there is collateral damage.

When Israel's military hagmony comes to an end, that would be the end of Israel as well. Just imagine what would have happend to Israel were it lost any of its past wars. Things today are no different.
Israel can not afford to lose. It's not a political war or an attempt to make the world a safer, better place (i.e. Iraq war), it's a war over existence.

in future the rockets range will get longer---and soon they will be coming from every surrounding country and from ships at sea.---not state sponsored---but terrorist sponsored.---and financed by oil money and popular hatred.

The situation you describe is exactly why Israel must eliminate the rocket threat and make sure the Arabs know this method will not work for them.
Also, take into account that Egypt, Syria and Jordan all have much more to lose than Lebanon, and are also able to effectively control their territories. They won't let a terrorist organization determine their foreign policy.

 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
A good part of the Israelie conflict derives from the fact that Israel has a kick ass military---and is might is right---then Israel is all right. But the sad side effect is that Israel
is able to deny any fundemental and legitimate arguements the other side has---see the previously stated might is right if you don't believe me.
those are not facts nor true! Israel is fighting for its very existance day in and day out.
The United states did not arm Israel originally. The iraeli army did things the old fashioned way they simply kicked ass!! The United States got involved when it was found that the Soviets were arming Israel`s enemies. Did you the jews in the Soviet Union after WW2 also suffered the same autrocities as with the Germans?
yet even before we intervened with arms and munitions and technology, the I raeli army was kicking ass. Its one thing to got to war. It`s a totally new thing to be fighting for your very existance.

But somewhat the bully test is-----if they can dish it out---can they take it in the same spirit--------and Israel is now flunking that test in the eyes of the entire world.
Since when are you a bully for defending yourself? Israel is flunking no international test. Mainly because they cannot bve concerned with what the international communitie thinks!
mainly becuase they are fighting for there very survival.
A bully starts trouble. Israel is hardly the bully. They have made conbcessions after every war they have fought. Those concessions including giving back territorie that was won on the battle field. Those concessions also including giving back land to the Palestinians. yet what happenned? These people elected hezbollah...whats sad state of affairs.
Then you all say the lebonese should deal with hezbollah yet it was hezbollah that assassinated the lebonese prime minister and put the fear of Allah into the rest of the lebanese cabinet whata farce.

Granted its a huge crisis when a terrorist organization---from within the borders of a another country starts pegging a rein of missle on Israel---which is no different from
what the entire lot of the Palistinian people has been for the past 50 years or so----and the latest round of payback on the part of Hezbollah does not even begin to even the score.
Whats score needs to be evened? Unless you are for the demise of a complete race of people? So you hate the jew`s that much? You really should read some history on the subject.
As Israel has engaged in similar brutish tactics with inpunity for many years against the Palistinians.---except they used tanks and planes against equally defenseless civilians.
Israel only reacts when they have too. So your saying that its okay Israel should let its enemies do as they please? With no cause for retribution?
Its real sad that you only see one side of this whole affair.

But now there is a sea change---for the first time in recent history---the fairly short range rocket has fallen into terrorists hands---and now Israel finds to its dismay---that its vaunted military is powerless to stop that technology---for now the favored launching site will be Southern Labanon---which has a basket case of a government--due in no small part to Israelie
past occupation.---in future the rockets range will get longer---and soon they will be coming from every surrounding country and from ships at sea.---not state sponsored---but terrorist sponsored.---and financed by oil money and popular hatred.
Thast why this time around Israel cannot aford to allow anybody to dictate anything as was said better than I could--
In any case, I believe the true cause of grief here is the international community who stopped Israel from having a complete victory in its wars.
This what made the conflict last so long. Were Israel to punish the Arab states who attacked it like they deserved, there could be peace long ago. But with the UN sticking its nose and demanding cease fires, the Arabs never get to pay for their actions like they should have.
Israel should have won and made peace on its own terms. The international community puts the victor and the losers of the ME wars on a level field which is just wrong.

And Israel has totally bungled this present crisis---at first even the Arab states condemmed Hezbollah---and there were opportunities to get international troops into Southern Lebanon.
Instead Isael mistakenly opted to punish totally innocent Lebanese civilians in great numbers---resulting in arab hero worshiping of Hezbollah---Israelie world condemation---and now Israel is more united than ever on a mutual delusion of superority that can only lead to self distruction----as they rachet up world hatred to new highs.
No Israel opted to punish hezbollah. It is not Israel`s fault that hezbollah hides behide civilians.
Actually Israel is more determined than ever to ensure this doesn`t happen again!
Maybe its finally time for Israel to wake up---smell the coffee---and realise they better be more reasonable to their neighbors---their military hegmony has done come to an end--and they better start addressing a new reality. ---what the UN givith--is also someting the UN can taketh away---and the present bahavoir of Isreal makes a compelling arguement for it.

No!! me thinks its time for the Arab world to step up to the plate and honestly say 2 words-- let`s talk...or hey lets go out and have coffee. You are being Nieve if you think the Un can take anything away. Thats one thing that will never happen.
In 1947 the British turned over their control of Palestine to the newly-formed United Nations Organization. Under much political pressure, the U.N. finally partitioned off a small portion of the land (the size of Vermont) for the Jews in November of 1947. As the British withdrew in 1948, armed groups of Zionists forced thousands of Arabs to leave their homes. In the midst of this conflict there was a declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948.

juust a quick history lesson. You really believ the UN wants to mess with israel...rofl...:D
 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
Originally posted by: Talcite
I really have to say that was the worst argument I've ever read. I'm Canadian and a catholic so I sort of understand where the american perspective is coming from, but oh wow.

1: archaeological evidence doesn't mean crap. If you lose your country, you've lost it. It's a reason to fight for it again, but not a reason that they deserve it back!
Actually if you believe that way why has Israel made concessions and given back almost all the terrtory it has ever taken due to war? Not because it had too give it back. Who are we trying to fool? There is no arab country who honestly wants to go 1 on 1 with israel.

In 1947 the British turned over their control of Palestine to the newly-formed United Nations Organization. Under much political pressure, the U.N. finally partitioned off a small portion of the land (the size of Vermont) for the Jews in November of 1947. As the British withdrew in 1948, armed groups of Zionists forced thousands of Arabs to leave their homes. In the midst of this conflict there was a declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948.


2: It's alot like #1 shouldn't it? archaeology should be under history isn't it? I'd have to say this guy was shovelling the bullshit so he could get the "perfect number"
Your opinion.:D

3: They got a country because they can be farmers? That's hardly a good reason. If people got land for their merit, and especially if for their agricultural merit, then the world would be a very different place today.
I see you again are showing how little you know about that region.
Whats interesting to note that part of the middle east has vitually no oil and was useless barren dessert. that is before the Israeli`s inhabited the land and made into a rich agricultural oasis that rival anything we have in the states.
Arab jealousy...hmmm...could be,

4. Lots of people got slaughtered and abused in history. Heck look what's happening in Darfur. Why arn't you giving them California yet? You guys just lowered the minimum wage of tipped employees to 2.13 an hour. I'm 18, a student with no degree, and I still make 4x more than that. That has GOT to be human rights abuse. Give them NY.
What you just said made no sense whatsover..plz explain in detail.
5 and 6: they're pretty much the same thing. Oh look, he got 1 closer to the number 7. Oh surprise surprise... I think in number 6 I saw a glimpse of something. It's the only US foothold in the middle east? Maybe that's why they're getting US funding, US weapons and US support in every issue. It's not really a surprise israel goes with the US in every decision. Without US support, I doubt israel would last 3 weeks in the middle east as it is today.
WoW!! A correct observation! So I take it you would welcome the complete destruction of the nation of Israel? that what you just said.
There was a time back in israels early days that the Israeli army did things the hard way. they just plain kicked butt. Without anybodys help financially or militarily.
You ask what changed that?
A little war involving Egypt and Syria and Jordan. All 3 were getting there butts kicked by israel and the Soviet union stepped up to supply those countries with arms.
Eventually the US came to the aid of Israel with aid also.
since then approx 99% of all U.S. aid to Israel came after 1967, despite the fact that Israel was relatively more vulnerable in earlier years (from 1948-1967.
The close relationship between Israel and the United States was born out of Cold War tensions projected onto the regional conflict in the Middle East. Following the 1967 war, relations between Israel and its neighbors remained tense and by 1970, Israel found itself entangled in war of attrition with its southern neighbor Egypt. The U.S., implementing its policy of containment at the time, was competing with the Soviet Union for influence in regions around the world. So when the USSR began providing Egypt with their most advanced antiaircraft system and 1,500 combat personnel,1 the U.S. responded by providing Israel with a military loan of $545 million, nearly 20 times the military aid Israel had received the previous year and twice the total military assistance Israel had received in 22 years of existence.2 The alliance between Israel and the U.S. grew stronger through the 1970s as Soviet support of Arab states continued and as regional tensions peaked during the Yom Kippur War, and that alliance remains strong today. With its $3 billion annual aid package, Israel today receives more aid on better terms than any other nation in the world.


7. I mentioned earlier that I'm a catholic. I'm just not the fundamentalist bible-belt christian type. I can't believe people would possibly go by every word of the bible. The early bible was oral tradition... There's no way that it's the "word of god come down from heaven by divine intervention." Not to mention we didn't have printing presses for the longest time, so the copying errors could be horrendous. And it's also translated from greek, and we all know how well translation goes. And while i'm on this tangent.. Did you know that since the bible was god's word on earth by divine intervention... he spoke greek? Greek is god's language. why arn't you speaking greek yet?
Actually I learned along time ago that you cannot discuss the Bible if the other person does not have any belief in the Bible but suffice to say there ample scriptures that support that contention.
Yet the cop out from people who are biblically illiterate is basically what you just stated.
Some history--
The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from' which all the translations have been derives.
Oh look, he's gotten 7 reasons. That must mean his argument is perfect. Everyone drop your opposition to this topic, bow down and ask for forgiveness for your numerous transgressions to the one true christian god. Apparently he wants israel to exist too, so stop fighting palestine and lebanon.

I know i've probably insulted a whole lot of americans, even non-republican bible-belt types. I'm sorry. I just get very worked up about these kind of arguments.

And incase you're wondering what my take on this all is... Well I'd have to say israel can exist sure... but only because it already exists. And they have to make a genuine attempt at peace, not the bombing of civilians and UN observation posts in attempts to stop terrorists. If they can't pull it together... well maybe they should just give it all up and try again later.

Again you put all the blame at the feet of Israel. yet israel has given back the territory that it has won in almost every war. Why you might ask in the name of peace!!
yet you know as well as i do that if israel were to disarm today in the interest of peace;
that within a few years israel would be no more.
Everytime the countries surrounding israel have let well enough alone there has been relative peace. Not counting the occassional person who blows themselves up.

You honestly think that Israel canmake a genuine attempt at peace when the other arab nations want no part of a lasting peace?
Thats a copout and you know it! When you state--
And they have to make a genuine attempt at peace,

Shalom :D
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
I particularly enjoy the last three reasons, which of ourse have nothing to do with 'having a right' to anything.
 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I particularly enjoy the last three reasons, which of ourse have nothing to do with 'having a right' to anything.


that maybe true. In your eyes. but of course we know where you stand don`t we? hehee
 

Gamer X

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
769
0
0
Originally posted by: IrateLeaf
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I particularly enjoy the last three reasons, which of ourse have nothing to do with 'having a right' to anything.


that maybe true. In your eyes. but of course we know where you stand don`t we? hehee



How on earth is Israel's being a strategic ally or a roadblock to terrorism give it right to the land ? And God said so ? gimme a break. God watches the Israeli massacres and I bet he does not like it.
 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamer X
Originally posted by: IrateLeaf
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I particularly enjoy the last three reasons, which of ourse have nothing to do with 'having a right' to anything.


that maybe true. In your eyes. but of course we know where you stand don`t we? hehee



How on earth is Israel's being a strategic ally or a roadblock to terrorism give it right to the land ? And God said so ? gimme a break. God watches the Israeli massacres and I bet he does not like it.

Shalom! :D