Israel MAY be ready to endorse a two State solution

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Sure there is. The Palestinians attacked first, and Israel responded in defense. This has always been the case. The reason why are aren't blaming Israel is because that would be akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped because of the way she was dressed.

When exactly are you calling "first" here, and how are you casting people resisting having their homeland colonized out from under them as the rapist? Would you make the same argument against Native Americans who attacked the settlers on their former homelands? Seems to me more like you are blaming the victim for scratching back while being raped.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Also, I'm curious to know why you accept the apologists claims of Hamas using human shields?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese Army general, said of the Israeli allegations, ''Of course there are hidden invisible tunnels, bunkers of missile launchers, bunkers of explosive charges amongst civilians.''

Asked whether Hezbollah should be seen as responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians in the war, he replied: ''Of course Hezbollah is responsible. But these people are ready to sacrifice their lives for Hezbollah. If you tell them, 'Your relative died,' they will tell you 'No, he was a martyr.' The party's military preparations from 2000 till 2006 took place in their areas. They were of course done with complete secrecy, but in accordance with the civilians.''

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Sure there is. The Palestinians attacked first, and Israel responded in defense. This has always been the case. The reason why are aren't blaming Israel is because that would be akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped because of the way she was dressed.

When exactly are you calling "first" here, and how are you casting people resisting having their homeland colonized out from under them as the rapist? Would you make the same argument against Native Americans who attacked the settlers on their former homelands? Seems to me more like you are blaming the victim for scratching back while being raped.

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that the Arabs willingly SOLD the land to the Jewish immigrants to begin with, and that the land was completely worthless until the Jewish settlers cultivated it.

Or are you referring to the relatively more recent Jewish settlers on the West Bank, the ones whom were recently forcibly removed from the homes by the Israeli government in a futile effort to appease the Palestinians?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Had the Arabs not attacked in '48 and '56; the geographical borders for the State of Israel would be a lot smaller.

We have been though these arguments of yours before, including just a few days ago in this very thread, to which I responded:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
'48, the ethnic cleansing mentioned above was taking place on both sides of the UN partition plan for months before the Arab states sent their armies in.

'56 Israel with British and French backing parachuted into the Sinai to take the Suez Canal.
...

Now, where are you getting "Arabs clearly attacked first and rolled into Israeli territory" in any of this?

You couldn't answer that question, but simply retorted by asking misconceived ones based on your delusions before ducking out of the discussion, and now your are back presenting the lies you cling to again. Again I ask you, have you no concept of shame?

1) Did Israel attack Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt in '48 or was Israel attacked by those nations.

2) Why were the Arab nations so eager to tackle Israel, yet treated the Palestinians so badly within territory that the Arabs controlled?


Israel in '48 - UK site


Wiki - 1948 Arab?Israeli War

The British Mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, Iran, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.[

I will back off on the '56 that the Arabs took land from Israel

However, I standby my impression that Egypt instigated the conflict
Link

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[26][27] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[28]

Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire.[28][29] Israel agreed to withdraw from Egyptian territory. Egypt agreed to freedom of navigation in the region and the demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created and deployed to oversee the demilitarization.[30] The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory.[31]

On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers,[32] and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula.[33] It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping,[34][35] returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Had the Arabs not attacked in '48 and '56; the geographical borders for the State of Israel would be a lot smaller.

We have been though these arguments of yours before, including just a few days ago in this very thread, to which I responded:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
'48, the ethnic cleansing mentioned above was taking place on both sides of the UN partition plan for months before the Arab states sent their armies in.

'56 Israel with British and French backing parachuted into the Sinai to take the Suez Canal.
...

Now, where are you getting "Arabs clearly attacked first and rolled into Israeli territory" in any of this?

You couldn't answer that question, but simply retorted by asking misconceived ones based on your delusions before ducking out of the discussion, and now your are back presenting the lies you cling to again. Again I ask you, have you no concept of shame?

1) Did Israel attack Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt in '48 or was Israel attacked by those nations.

2) Why were the Arab nations so eager to tackle Israel, yet treated the Palestinians so badly within territory that the Arabs controlled?


Israel in '48 - UK site


Wiki - 1948 Arab?Israeli War

The British Mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, Iran, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.[

I will back off on the '56 that the Arabs took land from Israel

However, I standby my impression that Egypt instigated the conflict
Link

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[26][27] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[28]

Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire.[28][29] Israel agreed to withdraw from Egyptian territory. Egypt agreed to freedom of navigation in the region and the demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created and deployed to oversee the demilitarization.[30] The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory.[31]

On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers,[32] and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula.[33] It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping,[34][35] returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

You forgot the part where in 1967 Egypt mobilized its air force, as well as conversed with the King of Jordan and the leader of Syria trying to organize a multi-front attack around the same time the blockade started.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Had the Arabs not attacked in '48 and '56; the geographical borders for the State of Israel would be a lot smaller.

We have been though these arguments of yours before, including just a few days ago in this very thread, to which I responded:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
'48, the ethnic cleansing mentioned above was taking place on both sides of the UN partition plan for months before the Arab states sent their armies in.

'56 Israel with British and French backing parachuted into the Sinai to take the Suez Canal.
...

Now, where are you getting "Arabs clearly attacked first and rolled into Israeli territory" in any of this?

You couldn't answer that question, but simply retorted by asking misconceived ones based on your delusions before ducking out of the discussion, and now your are back presenting the lies you cling to again. Again I ask you, have you no concept of shame?

1) Did Israel attack Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt in '48 or was Israel attacked by those nations.

2) Why were the Arab nations so eager to tackle Israel, yet treated the Palestinians so badly within territory that the Arabs controlled?


Israel in '48 - UK site


Wiki - 1948 Arab?Israeli War

The British Mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, Iran, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.[

I will back off on the '56 that the Arabs took land from Israel

However, I standby my impression that Egypt instigated the conflict
Link

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[26][27] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[28]

Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire.[28][29] Israel agreed to withdraw from Egyptian territory. Egypt agreed to freedom of navigation in the region and the demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created and deployed to oversee the demilitarization.[30] The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory.[31]

On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers,[32] and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula.[33] It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping,[34][35] returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

You forgot the part where in 1967 Egypt mobilized its air force, as well as conversed with the King of Jordan and the leader of Syria trying to organize a multi-front attack around the same time the blockade started.

That is for a different subject.

This was the Arabs going after Israel first.
In '67, Israel was reacting to the Arabs who were preparing for the attack. - Preemptive
In '73, it was again the Arabs attacking Israel.

However, when one is anti Israel, the Arabs are not to blame.
Israel has not been the poster child;however, they have not tried to exterminate any Arab nation, unlike the reverse.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Also, I'm curious to know why you accept the apologists claims of Hamas using human shields?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese Army general, said of the Israeli allegations, ''Of course there are hidden invisible tunnels, bunkers of missile launchers, bunkers of explosive charges amongst civilians.''

Asked whether Hezbollah should be seen as responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians in the war, he replied: ''Of course Hezbollah is responsible. But these people are ready to sacrifice their lives for Hezbollah. If you tell them, 'Your relative died,' they will tell you 'No, he was a martyr.' The party's military preparations from 2000 till 2006 took place in their areas. They were of course done with complete secrecy, but in accordance with the civilians.''

Note a difference in the bolded above? Regardless, The retired General doesn't source his claims, which contradict the US Army War College report on that conflict.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Sure there is. The Palestinians attacked first, and Israel responded in defense. This has always been the case. The reason why are aren't blaming Israel is because that would be akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped because of the way she was dressed.

When exactly are you calling "first" here, and how are you casting people resisting having their homeland colonized out from under them as the rapist? Would you make the same argument against Native Americans who attacked the settlers on their former homelands? Seems to me more like you are blaming the victim for scratching back while being raped.

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that the Arabs willingly SOLD the land to the Jewish immigrants to begin with, and that the land was completely worthless until the Jewish settlers cultivated it.

Or are you referring to the relatively more recent Jewish settlers on the West Bank, the ones whom were recently forcibly removed from the homes by the Israeli government in a futile effort to appease the Palestinians?

The fact is most of the land wasn't purchased, either in the West Bank or in what is now Israel proper, which I adressed back near the begining of this thread:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Regardless, here in reality, around a third of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are built on land owned by Palestinian individuals, taken under force of occupation. Furthermore, back in '47-'48 Zionist militias and terrorist groups depopulated hundreds of villages. . So yes, I am talking about many square miles of land Israel has taken from Palestinians by force.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
1) Did Israel attack Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt in '48 or was Israel attacked by those nations.

So if only they would have stood by as Israel continued ethnically cleansing the region, eh?

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
2) Why were the Arab nations so eager to tackle Israel, yet treated the Palestinians so badly within territory that the Arabs controlled?
...
I will back off on the '56 that the Arabs took land from Israel

However, I standby my impression that Egypt instigated the conflict
...

Apparently because you refuse to acknowledge that Egypt was trying to pressure Israel into respecting the rights of the refugees they ethnically cleansed from the region back in '47-'48.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

Straw Man.

When those gangs start to fire rockets on a daily basis into downtown LA and conduct suicide bombings in LA bars and clubs, and repeated efforts all fail to end the attacks, then maybe we'll talk about whether or not bombing known gang hideouts is an appropriate course of action. Till such time, we'll stick to reality.

So the gangs are not killing people on a daily basis?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The militants made a deliberate attempt to ensure that there were no civilian areas.
When an attack is launched from a geographical area, it becomes a military target, no longer a civilian enclave.

That was very nice of them. Can you explain why you are not in favour of bombing Bilbao or Belfast?

It is a decision of the fighters where they choose to fight. The opponents need to use the best way to protect themselves from the casualities that will ensure when they commit to the battle.

How much choice do civilians, particularly children, have in deciding where they are? I suppose all the civilians forgot to ensure that their annual two-week holiday on the coasts of Greece coincided with the shelling of their homes? Where do you expect them to go?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

Sure there is. Under the conditions of "surrender or die" the Palestinians repeatedly choose the latter.

Yeah, the children that died were clearly offered that choice.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

Straw Man.

When those gangs start to fire rockets on a daily basis into downtown LA and conduct suicide bombings in LA bars and clubs, and repeated efforts all fail to end the attacks, then maybe we'll talk about whether or not bombing known gang hideouts is an appropriate course of action. Till such time, we'll stick to reality.

So the gangs are not killing people on a daily basis?

Go back to the rock you had crawled from under. You have completely destroyed your credibility by trying to push this absurd comparison.

I will not explain this to you, if you do not already understand you are not worth the effort.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

Straw Man.

When those gangs start to fire rockets on a daily basis into downtown LA and conduct suicide bombings in LA bars and clubs, and repeated efforts all fail to end the attacks, then maybe we'll talk about whether or not bombing known gang hideouts is an appropriate course of action. Till such time, we'll stick to reality.

So the gangs are not killing people on a daily basis?

Go back to the rock you had crawled from under. You have completely destroyed your credibility by trying to push this absurd comparison.

I will not explain this to you, if you do not already understand you are not worth the effort.

The arguments used to justify attacks on civilian areas can be applied in each case. This is were the logic of those wishing to justify Israel's recent atrocities fails. I couldn't care less what you think of me or my credibility.

You are all trapped by labels: when the Palestinians launch rockets, this constitutes terrorism, when Israel bombards civilian areas, this constitutes military action. I'm sorry that the world does not break down into a simple dichotomy of the good and the bad and I'm sorry that your lack of vision prevents you from acknowledging this truth.

What about Belfast and Bilbao? There are terrorists in each of these cities, should we bomb them? Sorry, that's clearly another absurd comparison as it doesn't seem to fit into your neatly ordered view of the world.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The militants made a deliberate attempt to ensure that there were no civilian areas.
When an attack is launched from a geographical area, it becomes a military target, no longer a civilian enclave.

That was very nice of them. Can you explain why you are not in favour of bombing Bilbao or Belfast?

It is a decision of the fighters where they choose to fight. The opponents need to use the best way to protect themselves from the casualities that will ensure when they commit to the battle.

How much choice do civilians, particularly children, have in deciding where they are? I suppose all the civilians forgot to ensure that their annual two-week holiday on the coasts of Greece coincided with the shelling of their homes? Where do you expect them to go?

It is the choice of the combatants where they fight and what tactics they use.
Those that claim to be responsible for the civilians must also take into account their tactics and the result of such.
The civilians can not get out of the way - yet those that choose to involve the civilians must take the responsibiliy of doing so.

The Palestinian militants who have been attacking Israel have made the decission to deliberately blend into the civilian model in an attempt to generate an advantage in the conflicts.

Israel refused to allow such an advantage having seen the results from previous conflicts.

Originally posted by: Red Irish
You are all trapped by labels: when the Palestinians launch rockets, this constitutes terrorism, when Israel bombards civilian areas, this constitutes military action. I'm sorry that the world does not break down into a simple dichotomy of the good and the bad and I'm sorry that your lack of vision prevents you from acknowledging this truth.

If the Palestinian launched rockets at military related targets, I would have no qualms. They are not - they launch at civilian targets with one objective only - to create terror and choas amoung the civilian population.

Israel launchs attacks against militant positions/locations/targets where the militants have launched attacks from; store their munitions and/or plot their next attacks.


To use your Belfast examples.
Bombing a church/funeral vs a military barracks or police station.

What is the value of the first and what message does it send vs the second set of targets.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

[point 1] The Palestinian militants who have been attacking Israel have made the decission to deliberately blend into the civilian model in an attempt to generate an advantage in the conflicts.

Israel refused to allow such an advantage having seen the results from previous conflicts.

[point 2] Israel launchs attacks against militant positions/locations/targets where the militants have launched attacks from; store their munitions and/or plot their next attacks.

Point one: you are quite right, Israel clearly refused to allow such an advantage.

Point two: a lie.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

Sure there is. Under the conditions of "surrender or die" the Palestinians repeatedly choose the latter.

Yeah, the children that died were clearly offered that choice.

In which case I suggest those parents choose to surrender and leave the war zone and/or decide to stop their fighters from continuing the war. Allowing the war to continue has cost FAR more lives.

As for children, it's their parent's mistakes that kill them. Happens every day in this world. The blame goes to the parent. They know how to keep their children alive, stop the war or get the hell out of there. They refuse to do so and they pay the price for that.

That you are unwilling to see them pay that price shows a very serious flaw in your ability to engage in warfare. This is a weakness that will be exploited and used against you.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Lolz, another "the Palestinains did this first", "no, the Isrealis did this, and that means this has to happen", No, the Isreali's were attacked first, No, the Palestinans won this , no the Pals. er um Isreali's, my side won!, no, my side won!" thread.

The real issue is how Israel manipulates the United States into being its protector, its enabler and its source for most of the arms. Any attempt to plot and follow a neutral and/or middle ground in the Middle East by any American government official is nearly always met with immediate and petulant whines of anti-Semitism by the Israelis and their toadies here in the United States, i.e., AIPAC. Any American politician who tries to follow a neutral and middle ground in dealing with all factions in the Middle East can count on being labeled "anti-Semitic" in a nonce, a trice and a heartbeat.

It is not alone Israel's existence that is in peril in a world which sooner or later will intervene to impose a solution to the Palestine problem. Most of the leadership of the American Jewish community has shown inexpungable ethnocentrism, aggressive self-righteousness, and brutal political tactics in support of Israel and has put at risk the security and well being of American Jewry. At some point, despite all the efforts of unconditional supporters of Israel in the US elite, a new foreign policy consensus will dictate a righting of the current imbalance. At that point, those whose most profound notion is that Israel can do no wrong (beneath which there are other, Social Darwinian strata and a deep rejection of the Enlightenment) will find themselves confronted with questions about dual loyalty - and the golden age of American Jewry will end.

Status Quo...

Both hamas and Israel are murderers of innocents, the difference being Hamas murderer one at a time and Israel is a mass murderer. Both Hamas and Israel are racists, the difference being that Israel is the racist in control with the most weapons.

It would be radical change for the better if the Obama admin. addressed the situation as neutral mediators. Early indications are that he is loathe to upset the status quo.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

[point 1] The Palestinian militants who have been attacking Israel have made the decision to deliberately blend into the civilian model in an attempt to generate an advantage in the conflicts.

Israel refused to allow such an advantage having seen the results from previous conflicts.

[point 2] Israel launches attacks against militant positions/locations/targets where the militants have launched attacks from; store their munitions and/or plot their next attacks.

Point one: you are quite right, Israel clearly refused to allow such an advantage.

Point two: a lie.

Point 2?
a) When Israel is able to pinpoint a missile/motor launch site, they have attacked it.

b) When Israel has identified munitions locations they have attacked it - explosions from the site may damage ares - that is where the publicity/wringing of hands happens. Israel and most countries keep munitions in bunkers that are well insulated to protect against damage from an accidental discharge. The munitions plants that are hit by Israel do not have such protection - therefore the collateral damage is much greater. Those munition plants are hidden in neighborhoods for camouflage and the ability to create sympathy in the case of an explosion.

c) Israel has launched missiles/laser bombs are militant leader locations (houses and vehicles). Those leaders are targets of military value, they are not civilians. Israel has not latched attacks against the Palestinian civilian leadership that are not involved in the military side. Note that they could have remove Arafat multiple times - they were even sitting on his front door.

When a missile/bomb hits a military target and there are civilians hurt, it is not because the civilians were targeted. w/ respect to on the ground causalities, there will be errors - but it is not accepted practice.



Israel is not going into Gaza and leveling the place as a scorched earth policy - driving out the civilians with the militants. They have the capability of doing so.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

When a missile/bomb hits a military target and there are civilians hurt, it is not because the civilians were targeted. w/ respect to on the ground causalities, there will be errors - but it is not accepted practice.

That's a good joke. Not accepted practice indeed.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Lolz, another "the Palestinains did this first", "no, the Isrealis did this, and that means this has to happen", No, the Isreali's were attacked first, No, the Palestinans won this , no the Pals. er um Isreali's, my side won!, no, my side won!" thread.

The real issue is how Israel manipulates the United States into being its protector, its enabler and its source for most of the arms. Any attempt to plot and follow a neutral and/or middle ground in the Middle East by any American government official is nearly always met with immediate and petulant whines of anti-Semitism by the Israelis and their toadies here in the United States, i.e., AIPAC. Any American politician who tries to follow a neutral and middle ground in dealing with all factions in the Middle East can count on being labeled "anti-Semitic" in a nonce, a trice and a heartbeat.

It is not alone Israel's existence that is in peril in a world which sooner or later will intervene to impose a solution to the Palestine problem. Most of the leadership of the American Jewish community has shown inexpungable ethnocentrism, aggressive self-righteousness, and brutal political tactics in support of Israel and has put at risk the security and well being of American Jewry. At some point, despite all the efforts of unconditional supporters of Israel in the US elite, a new foreign policy consensus will dictate a righting of the current imbalance. At that point, those whose most profound notion is that Israel can do no wrong (beneath which there are other, Social Darwinian strata and a deep rejection of the Enlightenment) will find themselves confronted with questions about dual loyalty - and the golden age of American Jewry will end.

Status Quo...

Both hamas and Israel are murderers of innocents, the difference being Hamas murderer one at a time and Israel is a mass murderer. Both Hamas and Israel are racists, the difference being that Israel is the racist in control with the most weapons.

It would be radical change for the better if the Obama admin. addressed the situation as neutral mediators. Early indications are that he is loathe to upset the status quo.

Cool story bro. I heard the Jews were the ones REALLY behind 9/11 too.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

When a missile/bomb hits a military target and there are civilians hurt, it is not because the civilians were targeted. w/ respect to on the ground causalities, there will be errors - but it is not accepted practice.

That's a good joke. Not accepted practice indeed.

I think a quick glance at the casualty rates confirms the truth. If Israelis specifically targeted civilians as a matter of military policy there wouldn't just be a couple hundred civilian deaths mixed in with the armed militants who are targeted, there'd be tens of thousands of bodies. Some soldiers go against policy but the overwhelming number of civilian deaths are collateral. As opposed to the palestinian and other terrorist groups who not only target civilians, but brag about it. No one seems to debate their policy.

 

[Lemon law]

What we forget in all this is that not only are lives lost, but property damage occurs as well. Some 1-2 thousand lives were lost in the recent Israel offensive against Gaza, the bulk of it non combatants. A full 2 billion dollars of property damage occurred. On the Israel side, Hamas rockets only claimed less than a dozen lives and less than a million in property damage. It was even more one sided in the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon.

Its not exactly an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth here.

At a certain point, for Israel, it has to realize that (1) One sided victories like that have not made the problem go away for the full 60 year history of the open conflict. (2) Building up a uncontainable reservoir of Arab and Palestinian hatreds is a huge long term liability for Israel.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Another question to ask is what will happen when rockets and motors can no longer touch populated areas in Israel when the "Iron Dome" comes fully online. To thwart the system a massive barrage of missiles would be needed which removes the argument that the "pop bottle rockets" are harmless, which would give Israel much more support for any retaliation and further isolating gaza (and maybe the west bank if they try it). If this happens then something like a laser interception system would be developed so nothing gets through. With the success of the wall terrorist attacks coming from gaza into Israel are near impossible, with time it will only become harder as weak spots are identified.

So what happens when violence becomes impossible, when support from the death toll caused by Israeli retaliation is gone, and the world forgets they exist? I think the palis (I'll use the full term when that country exists) have squandered their opportunity to get a reasonable deal worked out. Who will care when the bombs stop falling?

 

[Lemon law]

How can ZzZGuy fail to see that if Israel dons that suit of armor that makes them immune from any outside harm, then it follows that Israel would then have no justification to retaliate in any way. They could simply ignore it instead.