http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255694838775&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hamas TV program: English is enemy's language
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
+ Recommend:


What's this?



The Hamas children's television program, Tomorrow's Pioneers, last week included a part in which children were told it is important to know English, because it is "the language of their enemy."


Nassur, the Hamas bunny.


SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World Following is the transcript provided by Palestinian Media Watch:

Child host: What do you want to be in the future, Allah willing?

Child caller:A teacher of the English language.

Host: Why do you want to be specifically an English teacher?

Child: To teach children the language of their enemy. (Child host smiles.)

Host: Very nice. A great field. It is not enough for us to know our own language... We also want to study the language of our enemies, to know how to have contacts with them, and so that we can convey the message of Palestinian children...

Nassur (the bear-puppet host): Like me! Just like I know the Zionist enemy's language.

Host: Really?

Nassur: Hebrew.

Host: Okay, speak (in Hebrew).

Nassur: I can't! (Laughs). (Al-Aqsa TV, October 16, 2009)

Transcribed by Palestinian Media Watch

Wow... talk about propaganda...

Smart.....

I wonder why the Plaestinians might be pissed off?

Better check for Reds under the Bed twice tonight....

Have you not seen any of the clips (that were anyway...?) on Youtube/similar ?

You think this is bad... check the clip on here .

I am never saying anything bad about our TV ever again.

To quote LOTR "how can man fight against such wreckless hate?"

At least they aren't watching BRATZ.

You think this is bad... check the clip on here .

Everything about that link is awful (content and provider in equal measure), though the video definitely gets top marks for being the worst of the bad.

I'm all for more people learning English, really.

If having people out to kill me is the price to pay for not having to learn a second language, so be it.

Thats serious dedication to laxity in thepursuit of multilinguistics there orky. You have to respect that level of apathy.

'Nuke it from orbit', its the only way to make them learn.

THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!DEATH TO THE XENOS!DEATH TO THE XENOS!

Frazzled wrote:To quote LOTR "how can man fight against such wreckless hate?"

By no longer mindlessly supporting, arming and funding an equally evil regime whose idea of retribution is to bulldoze villages, launch Helicopter Gunship Raids, target Hospitals, boot you off your land, and generally act the gakker, including ignoring several UN Resolutions without facing sanctions?

Nope, thats not it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:To quote LOTR "how can man fight against such wreckless hate?"

By no longer mindlessly supporting, arming and funding an equally evil regime whose idea of retribution is to bulldoze villages, launch Helicopter Gunship Raids, target Hospitals, boot you off your land, and generally act the gakker, including ignoring several UN Resolutions without facing sanctions?

Tell ya what, we'll stop supporting the aforementioned regime when the "underdog" in that case stops suicide bombing discos, launching rockets at schools, bombing marketplaces, and opening fire on schoolchildren.

Sound good Palesti...oh damnit.

Just pointing out that one can hardly claim the moral high ground when a perpatrator of horrendous acts of cruelty isn't just condoned, but supported by the West, who claim to wish an end to oppression the world over.

Didn't say either side was in the right. Both are as bad as each other, but only one is getting away with it on our respective governments say so.

See, the issue with Israel/Palestine...

If any support was withdrawn from Israel, you would IMMEDIATELY see a backlash. And not just of Israel against the West. You'd see Israel doing what they've been held back from for years; which is flatout nuclear strikes as an opening salvo.

I'd, quite frankly, much rather support Israel and keep them in check(for what it's worth), then withdraw support and ensure an opening of an all-out war which we'd be drawn into anyways. And mark my words, we WOULD be drawn into it either way, as there WOULD be strikes against anywhere considered having aided the Jews before.

But the support of Israel by the West goes a hell of a long way to justifying Islamic Extremist sentiment towards the west. Take that away, and enforce proper sanctions on them, and you take that string away from their bow.

I say Israel has made it's bed, and it's getting close to bedtime...

But this is a different thread altogether, so I shall withdraw for fear of further derailment. But before I go, please note that once again on this highly sensitive issue, I have not beought respective Religions into it. If you're a dick, you're a dick, and your God of choice cannot save you from that.

We'll just stage a fake coup in our own country so we don't have to be associated with them.

All hail Octavia!

Orkeosaurus wrote:We'll just stage a fake coup in our own country so we don't have to be associated with them.

All hail Octavia!

Or as I have said in the past (and got a mod warning for) we Nuke Israel ourselves, and 99% of our problems in the middle east dry up overnight.

And then all of a sudden we've lost our best ruse

Lordhat wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:We'll just stage a fake coup in our own country so we don't have to be associated with them.

All hail Octavia!

Or as I have said in the past (and got a mod warning for) we Nuke Israel ourselves, and 99% of our problems in the middle east dry up overnight.

And for advocating the senseless genocide of millions you might get another warning. But then, no one expects much more from you.

I SAID A FAKE COUP, NOT A REAL ONE, GOD DAMN

The enemy is on the move..

America stays supporting Israel because of the heavy Neocon Christian Zionist movement, which is basically fundamentalist Christians (the modern Crusaders) and Jews working side by side to suppress any views like:

By no longer mindlessly supporting, arming and funding an equally evil regime whose idea of retribution is to bulldoze villages, launch Helicopter Gunship Raids, target Hospitals, boot you off your land, and generally act the gakker, including ignoring several UN Resolutions without facing sanctions?

Because the above view is the exact way its happening. If America would realize this, and use our considerable military to forcefully disarm (nukes only) the Israeli's while simultaneously castrating the Islamic nations around it, and telling everyone to play fething nice, we would have alot less headache in the region.

A.) Because the surrounding nations are back in the fething stone age

and

B. Israel doesn't have the option to do nuclear genocide on the Islamic World (OH, THE IRONY).

Orkeosaurus wrote:We'll just stage a fake coup in our own country so we don't have to be associated with them.

All hail Octavia!

Onion FTW! And yay 1000th post!

I 2nd the nuking from orbit...or how about a virus bomb. Kills everyone but leaves the land and building intact.

I think traditionally a virus bomb decomposes the ecosystem into flammable gasses and then ignites the whole planet.

Then that's probably not a good idea, is it?

Maybe just a couple anti-plant grenades... ; )

How about a hundred Space Marines. Or, failing that, a thousand other troops.

Unleash the Berserkers.

They don't care about leveling cities, they just want blood AND SKULLS!!!!!!!!!!!

People still seem to have no idea why Palestinians hate others.

This link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7815415.stm shows images of the tunnels Palestinians have used to keep their city supplied. Israel tightly controls what goes into the city under the guise of stopping weapons and explosives, but as you can see in the link the tunnels are mostly used to bring in food supplies, and even livestock. Why would Israel stop basic supplies entering? To punish the civilian population for the acts of militants. The result is that every time there's a border flare up gasoline, food and drink is cut off in Palestine. Because some nutter blew himself up in Tel Aviv, your kid sister won't have anything to eat tonight.

So some kid hates the English speakers. Well duh.

You do realize that the civilian population also supplies the militants, and has for a long long time?

While yes, there are innocents, there's also a far larger amount of people who are more than willing to strap on a vest and go blow themselves to kingdom come because "some nutter" tells them it'll make their lives better.

Fateweaver wrote:Unleash the Berserkers.

They don't care about leveling cities, they just want blood AND SKULLS!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see it now:

This just in: WE ARE fethed! Today the entire Middle East was completely eradicated by power armored militants claiming Skulls for the Skull Throne and Blood for the Blood God. More at 9.

Hell, would make news worth watching. I'd Tivo that gak and watch it over and over.

Kanluwen wrote:You do realize that the civilian population also supplies the militants, and has for a long long time?

While yes, there are innocents, there's also a far larger amount of people who are more than willing to strap on a vest and go blow themselves to kingdom come because "some nutter" tells them it'll make their lives better.

Again, duh. The issue is why the civilian population supplies militants, why some people have lives so awful that they're willing to believe that blowing themselves up for a dream of something better.

And the answer to that is very obvious to anyone who spends any time at all looking in to living conditions in Palestine.

sebster wrote:This link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7815415.stm shows images of the tunnels Palestinians have used to keep their city supplied. Israel tightly controls what goes into the city under the guise of stopping weapons and explosives, but as you can see in the link the tunnels are mostly used to bring in food supplies, and even livestock. Why would Israel stop basic supplies entering? To punish the civilian population for the acts of militants. The result is that every time there's a border flare up gasoline, food and drink is cut off in Palestine. Because some nutter blew himself up in Tel Aviv, your kid sister won't have anything to eat tonight.

I like how you failed to mention that this isn't the situation on the West Bank. The Gaza Strip has been isolated in this matter since the take over by Hamas in 2007. You also fail to mention that the Gaza Strip has a border with Egypt, a fellow Muslim country, and it too has closed its border there. The issue isn't a blockade against the population because of random acts of terrorism, it is the power held by Hamas. This is largely agreed upon by almost all of the Arab countries....so no it is not just big, bad Israel and its Western friends....

sebster wrote:So some kid hates the English speakers. Well duh.

Your nonchalant attitude towards this situation is somewhat chilling...

JEB_Stuart wrote:I like how you failed to mention that this isn't the situation on the West Bank. The Gaza Strip has been isolated in this matter since the take over by Hamas in 2007. You also fail to mention that the Gaza Strip has a border with Egypt, a fellow Muslim country, and it too has closed its border there. The issue isn't a blockade against the population because of random acts of terrorism, it is the power held by Hamas. This is largely agreed upon by almost all of the Arab countries....so no it is not just big, bad Israel and its Western friends....

Egypt is basically a US client state, so I'm not sure what you're saying their support means.

I don't like Hamas, but I don't think the solution is punishing the civilian population by withholding food and medical supplies. I think it is one more example in the treatment of the Palestinians over a long period of time, which has unsurprisingly produced an environment friendly to violent reprisal.

Your nonchalant attitude towards this situation is somewhat chilling...

I'm not sure where you're getting nonchalant from. This is a very grave issue. Pointing out that Palestinians don't like Israelis and the US is something of a given, though. I could find a whole pile of Israelis pointing out that they don't like Palestinians or Arabs, and would expect same response.

What matters is what is driving that hatred, and it frustrates me because the causes are very clear.

sebster wrote:Egypt is basically a US client state, so I'm not sure what you're saying their support means.

I would hardly agree with that. It seems that a claim like that is a convenient cop out when faced with the fact that one of the regions most powerful nations is supporting this blockade and giving the "US/British/Israeli thugs" theory a sound thrashing. Regardless of this though, all of the major Arab countries in the area, with the exception of Syria, have all gone to great lengths to isolate the Gaza Strip until Hamas is either overthrown or stops demanding the annihilation of Israel... Are you prepared to claim that the Middle East is one big client state of the US, and that Syria is the only country that has the cajones to stand up for those poor Palestinians? That seems like a pretty long bow to draw....

sebster wrote:I don't like Hamas, but I don't think the solution is punishing the civilian population by withholding food and medical supplies. I think it is one more example in the treatment of the Palestinians over a long period of time, which has unsurprisingly produced an environment friendly to violent reprisal.

Well if you notice my first comment, the West Bank has a totally different situation...and a surprisingly peaceful relationship with Israel...

sebster wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting nonchalant from. This is a very grave issue. Pointing out that Palestinians don't like Israelis and the US is something of a given, though. I could find a whole pile of Israelis pointing out that they don't like Palestinians or Arabs, and would expect same response.

Its your "well duh" comment that struck me as nonchalant. Problems causing tension and violence is one thing, brainwashing children through TV programming is another. This kind of activity will only intensify the already existing problems between the Gaza Strip and Israel...

sebster wrote:What matters is what is driving that hatred, and it frustrates me because the causes are very clear.

Pointing fingers at just one side is ridiculous. I am not always a big fan of Israeli tactics, but you have to remember that the people of the Gaza Strip voted Hamas into power, and that is what sent this into a downhill spiral. The regions demands are very clear and simple: Stop demanding the destruction of Israel, especially in your party platform, and things will change for the better. There unwillingness to do so seems to point at a commitment to hatred more then reason...

Thats some messed up gak.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You do realize that the civilian population also supplies the militants, and has for a long long time?

While yes, there are innocents, there's also a far larger amount of people who are more than willing to strap on a vest and go blow themselves to kingdom come because "some nutter" tells them it'll make their lives better.

Again, duh. The issue is why the civilian population supplies militants, why some people have lives so awful that they're willing to believe that blowing themselves up for a dream of something better.

And the answer to that is very obvious to anyone who spends any time at all looking in to living conditions in Palestine.

When Israel was nothing but open kibbutzes the Palestinians were STILL constantly attacking them.

It doesn't take a damned rocket scientist to figure out what was going on then, when Israel was barely the size of Connecticut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh by the way:

Maybe if they stopped dicking around and accepting money from terrorist organizations they'd be taken more serious as a "woe is us!" country.

JEB_Stuart wrote:You also fail to mention that the Gaza Strip has a border with Egypt, a fellow Muslim country, and it too has closed its border there.

See, that's one of those thought trains that needs to be derailed. The Muslim world is not any more united than the Christian world, and people need to stop pretending otherwise.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The issue isn't a blockade against the population because of random acts of terrorism, it is the power held by Hamas. This is largely agreed upon by almost all of the Arab countries....so no it is not just big, bad Israel and its Western friends....

It isn't the power held by Hamas, its the tenuous nature of political relations with Israel. There is nothing to gain for any Arab state in helping the Palestinians as they necessarily risk Israeli reprisal through linkage; something which predates the current Hamas government. If the Israelis were actually willing to engage with their former enemies (especially Jordan) much of the issues implicit within the Palestinian problem could be circumvented.

JEB_Stuart wrote: the West Bank has a totally different situation...and a surprisingly peaceful relationship with Israel...

The massive concentration of Israeli forces within the region certainly doesn't hurt.

JEB_Stuart wrote: brainwashing children through TV programming is another.

I hate to break it to you, but all children are brainwashed to some degree. That's one of the necessary steps in terms of learning about one's world. Some people eventually escape the trap of what they've been taught, others do not. That is the way of things.

The program in question is problematic because it makes the issue difficult for the US, and the larger West, not because its empirically wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
When Israel was nothing but open kibbutzes the Palestinians were STILL constantly attacking them.

The Palestinian people didn't exist at the time. Not as we know them today.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what did happen. This isn't a question of moral certitude. Its a question of something which is broken that must be repaired (well, should be, the US could just as easily wipe its hand of both parties).

Kanluwen wrote:When Israel was nothing but open kibbutzes the Palestinians were STILL constantly attacking them.

It doesn't take a damned rocket scientist to figure out what was going on then, when Israel was barely the size of Connecticut.

At what point during those rocket attacks was Israel following the terms of the 1979 treaty and no longer expanding settlements in Palestinian land?

Oh by the way:

Maybe if they stopped dicking around and accepting money from terrorist organizations they'd be taken more serious as a "woe is us!" country.

You seem to be assuming I want to defend Hamas or something. I don't. Hamas itself is a terrorist organisation. But the real question is why Hamas has power in Palestine... and the answer to that comes from the situation the Palestinians are placed in by Israel.

Ultimately you have to look at who has power, and who has power to change the situation as it is right now. The reality is that it is not conceivable for an isolated, impverished country with huge unemployment to suddenly stop all of its citizens being violently resentful. But it is within the power of a wealthy, politically stable country to stop taking land off its neighbour, and to stop making it so difficult for them to find a little prosperity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I would hardly agree with that. It seems that a claim like that is a convenient cop out when faced with the fact that one of the regions most powerful nations is supporting this blockade and giving the "US/British/Israeli thugs" theory a sound thrashing. Regardless of this though, all of the major Arab countries in the area, with the exception of Syria, have all gone to great lengths to isolate the Gaza Strip until Hamas is either overthrown or stops demanding the annihilation of Israel... Are you prepared to claim that the Middle East is one big client state of the US, and that Syria is the only country that has the cajones to stand up for those poor Palestinians? That seems like a pretty long bow to draw....

Hang on, are you saying that US military aid to Egypt isn’t a factor in their policies? Egypt is the second biggest beneficiary of US aid, after Israel. We’re talking about tens of billions of dollars. How is saying ‘Egypt is influenced by receiving tens of billions in military aid from the US and this leads to it following the US/Israel policy on Egypt’ a cop out?

Well if you notice my first comment, the West Bank has a totally different situation...and a surprisingly peaceful relationship with Israel...

A peace treaty that coincided quite nicely with Israel abandoning its settlements in the area.

Its your "well duh" comment that struck me as nonchalant. Problems causing tension and violence is one thing, brainwashing children through TV programming is another. This kind of activity will only intensify the already existing problems between the Gaza Strip and Israel...

It was meant as being very nonchalant to the idea that Palestian children are brought up to hate Israel. I think we’re all aware that people strap bombs to themselves and set them off in Jewish market places. Going on to then focus entirely on that hatred and not the root cause of it is going to end up with some very poor conclusions.

‘Well, duh’ probably wasn’t the most complete way of saying it, but sometimes brevity has its reasons.

Pointing fingers at just one side is ridiculous. I am not always a big fan of Israeli tactics, but you have to remember that the people of the Gaza Strip voted Hamas into power, and that is what sent this into a downhill spiral. The regions demands are very clear and simple: Stop demanding the destruction of Israel, especially in your party platform, and things will change for the better. There unwillingness to do so seems to point at a commitment to hatred more then reason...

It isn’t pointing fingers at just one side. It is asking the one side with the power to change to change.

What?

Israel has attempted to change. There have been multiple times where Israel has ceased fire, relaxed the security around the Strip and opened it up as much as possible.

And what did they get? Rocket strikes at a dance club, schools, suicide bombers on buses and snipers opening up at schoolchildren.

Screw Palestine. They've had their chances, repeatedly. They've been offered amends and they choose to continue with this martyrdom bull because it gets their big brothers in the Islamic world to continue funding their operations.

Kanluwen wrote:What?

Israel has attempted to change. There have been multiple times where Israel has ceased fire, relaxed the security around the Strip and opened it up as much as possible.

And what did they get? Rocket strikes at a dance club, schools, suicide bombers on buses and snipers opening up at schoolchildren.

Screw Palestine. They've had their chances, repeatedly. They've been offered amends and they choose to continue with this martyrdom bull because it gets their big brothers in the Islamic world to continue funding their operations.

Let's say we're neighbours. We have some troubles as neighbours, and a big part of this is me building a shed in your backyard. We get in a punch up, the police then break it up. We agree that we'll stop punching each other, and that I'll take my shed down.

30 years later, not only is my shed still there, I'm constantly expanding it. We still get in punchups. It would make absolutely no sense for me to claim 'but we've agreed to a ceasefire' while I keep breaching the terms of that agreement.

Yet that's what you're doing. Israel is still building settlements in breach of the 1979 peace treaty.

Personally, I say we tell Israel to shove off as well. Why are we giving them money again?

dogma wrote:Personally, I say we tell Israel to shove off as well. Why are we giving them money again?

Because the Jewish lobby in Washington is really clever.

Actually, I've always blamed the role Israel played in the Cold War/Theagan Revolution. All those old warhorses love their prior allies.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:What?

Israel has attempted to change. There have been multiple times where Israel has ceased fire, relaxed the security around the Strip and opened it up as much as possible.

And what did they get? Rocket strikes at a dance club, schools, suicide bombers on buses and snipers opening up at schoolchildren.

Screw Palestine. They've had their chances, repeatedly. They've been offered amends and they choose to continue with this martyrdom bull because it gets their big brothers in the Islamic world to continue funding their operations.

Let's say we're neighbours. We have some troubles as neighbours, and a big part of this is me building a shed in your backyard. We get in a punch up, the police then break it up. We agree that we'll stop punching each other, and that I'll take my shed down.

30 years later, not only is my shed still there, I'm constantly expanding it. We still get in punchups. It would make absolutely no sense for me to claim 'but we've agreed to a ceasefire' while I keep breaching the terms of that agreement.

Yet that's what you're doing. Israel is still building settlements in breach of the 1979 peace treaty.

And what has Palestine done to enforce the peace treaty?

Oh...right.
Suicide bombings, rocket strikes, opening fire on children, carbombs...

The neighbours analogy doesn't really work.

It'd be more like...hrm. Let's say we share an apartment complex. I've paid my dues to get access to the pool area, and have then pushed for improvements to the pool.

You then decide that you don't like the improvements to the pool area and then...

Well then you go crying to five nations that you know will support an unfounded claim and declare an all out war against one tiny, undertrained country which has the population density of Minnesota--and then proceed to get smashed.

dogma wrote:See, that's one of those thought trains that needs to be derailed. The Muslim world is not any more united than the Christian world, and people need to stop pretending otherwise.

I was using the expression for the sake of the argument. I completely understand the tense divisions that fracture the Middle East and the Muslim world in general. Trust me, hearing about how the Jews and the Christians oppress the muslims in the ME is enough to drive one crazy, and this is just one example of how stupid that argument is. Don't forget, I live in California, where crazy ideas are served and consumed en masse....

dogma wrote:It isn't the power held by Hamas, its the tenuous nature of political relations with Israel. There is nothing to gain for any Arab state in helping the Palestinians as they necessarily risk Israeli reprisal through linkage; something which predates the current Hamas government. If the Israelis were actually willing to engage with their former enemies (especially Jordan) much of the issues implicit within the Palestinian problem could be circumvented

Considering all of them maintain good relations with the Fatah government but not Hamas run Gaza Strip, there seems to be a problem with your claim. Isolation of the strip is clearly, indeed it is the only reason as listed by these countries, the EU, the US, etc, tied to Hamas' dedication to the destruction of Israel.

dogma wrote:The massive concentration of Israeli forces within the region certainly doesn't hurt.

Neither do Pres. Clinton's strong efforts in 1994, or the fact that King Abdullah II is committed to modernization and better relations. Old wounds don't heal that quickly, but the level of trust and friendship between Jordan and Israel is building slowly.

dogma wrote:I hate to break it to you, but all children are brainwashed to some degree. That's one of the necessary steps in terms of learning about one's world. Some people eventually escape the trap of what they've been taught, others do not. That is the way of things.

I was specifically referencing children's programming. I can hardly agree that the Looney Tunes are comparable to this horrific display. Of course everyone has social conditioning as a child, but this is on a much more disturbing plane....

dogma wrote:The program in question is problematic because it makes the issue difficult for the US, and the larger West, not because its empirically wrong.

Telling kids to idolize a mother who blew herself and 5 Jews up is not wrong? Pardon me but, WTF?

sebster wrote:Hang on, are you saying that US military aid to Egypt isn’t a factor in their policies? Egypt is the second biggest beneficiary of US aid, after Israel. We’re talking about tens of billions of dollars. How is saying ‘Egypt is influenced by receiving tens of billions in military aid from the US and this leads to it following the US/Israel policy on Egypt’ a cop out?

Well considering its highly publicized criticism and and non-cooperation with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, its continued level of criticism over their subsequent occupation and reconstruction, I would say that they aren't a client state as you claim. Relations have been downright tense at some points for the last few years. I am not dismissing the immense aid the US has given to Egypt, but I think it is unfair to the Egyptian government to say that they are little more then puppets of the US, especially given their track record of criticism.

sebster wrote:A peace treaty that coincided quite nicely with Israel abandoning its settlements in the area.

Might work better if Hamas wasn't a terrorist organization. But it is, and Israel, along with much of the rest of the world, won't touch that with a 10 ft pole...

sebster wrote:It was meant as being very nonchalant to the idea that Palestinian children are brought up to hate Israel. I think we’re all aware that people strap bombs to themselves and set them off in Jewish market places. Going on to then focus entirely on that hatred and not the root cause of it is going to end up with some very poor conclusions.

‘Well, duh’ probably wasn’t the most complete way of saying it, but sometimes brevity has its reasons.

I understand you better now, I just don't care for your wording. I was a little angered when I first read it. Thanks for the clarification.

sebster wrote:It isn’t pointing fingers at just one side. It is asking the one side with the power to change.

Hard to do with rockets falling on your heads....

I can see while Israel is reluctant to become more freindly with their neighbor nations, given they all attacked them at least twice.

As for the tunnels, every time supply convoys have been sent into the gaza strip it has been seized by HAMAS not isreal, hamas, and they complain that thier people don't get enough supplies.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Considering all of them maintain good relations with the Fatah government but not Hamas run Gaza Strip, there seems to be a problem with your claim. Isolation of the strip is clearly, indeed it is the only reason as listed by these countries, the EU, the US, etc, tied to Hamas' dedication to the destruction of Israel.

Good relations do not physical support make.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Neither do Pres. Clinton's strong efforts in 1994, or the fact that King Abdullah II is committed to modernization and better relations. Old wounds don't heal that quickly, but the level of trust and friendship between Jordan and Israel is building slowly.

We'll see what happens once the issue of Palestinian water rights is introduced.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I was specifically referencing children's programming. I can hardly agree that the Looney Tunes are comparable to this horrific display. Of course everyone has social conditioning as a child, but this is on a much more disturbing plane....

It depends on which version of the Looney Toons you're talking about.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Telling kids to idolize a mother who blew herself and 5 Jews up is not wrong? Pardon me but, WTF?

Why do you think its wrong?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well considering its highly publicized criticism and and non-cooperation with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, its continued level of criticism over their subsequent occupation and reconstruction, I would say that they aren't a client state as you claim. Relations have been downright tense at some points for the last few years. I am not dismissing the immense aid the US has given to Egypt, but I think it is unfair to the Egyptian government to say that they are little more then puppets of the US, especially given their track record of criticism.

Fair point, client state is perhaps something of an exaggeration. But Egypt certainly tows the line where it really matters, and ignoring the importance of that aid in their policy is important.

Hard to do with rockets falling on your heads....

I don't see how 'stop building settlements in somebody else's country' is harder to do when they're firing rockets. I would say it's quite an easy thing to stop doing either way, if you have the political will to stop it.

Except what Palestine wants is "stop building settlements in land that we CLAIM to own, but is really in your territory. And that doesn't mean just Israeli citizens, it means any Christian Palestinians too".

Oh no! We all know the language of their enemies, so any one of us could be one of THEM!

PS: If you want to work against the West to bring about its downfall, please call the following free phone number...

Kanluwen wrote:And what has Palestine done to enforce the peace treaty?

Oh...right.
Suicide bombings, rocket strikes, opening fire on children, carbombs...

Many of which were begun by non-state actors, whom the Palestinian authorities have minimal resources to stop. The most recent rocket attacks were begun by non-state actors, after Israel tightened quarantine. In response to the attacks Israel stopped all supplies including medicine, then began limited offensives into the country. This led to Hamas firing its own rockets.

Hamas, or any government of Palestine, is simply not in a position to stop all non-state actors acting violently against Israel. As long as that is the standard for Israel to begin to honour the terms of its peace deal, the issue will never be resolved.

The neighbours analogy doesn't really work.

It'd be more like...hrm. Let's say we share an apartment complex. I've paid my dues to get access to the pool area, and have then pushed for improvements to the pool.

You then decide that you don't like the improvements to the pool area and then...

Umm, no, that's awful. No element in your analogy ties to any event or relationship. It's just bizarre, I can't even begin to see how that describes any part of the situation. What do the dues on the pool represent? What is the pool, what are the improvements to the pool? Are the 'improvement' the settlements? If so, what is going on that you think taking someone else's land and putting your own people there can be described as 'improvements'?

Meanwhile, you just said my analogy was bad, without ever bothering to explain why. Explain how the analogy fails, or ignore the analogy entirely and explain how building your own settlements in someone else's country isn't a major issue, and likely to end violently in any situation?

If Canada started building settlements in US soil, how would the US react?

Well then you go crying to five nations that you know will support an unfounded claim and declare an all out war against one tiny, undertrained country which has the population density of Minnesota--and then proceed to get smashed.

This relies on a belief that the political environment of the Middle East hasn't changed since the 1970s. If you think that Israel is under imminent threat of Arab invasion you really, really need to read some more modern material on the politics of the region.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Actually, I've always blamed the role Israel played in the Cold War/Theagan Revolution. All those old warhorses love their prior allies.

True, also a very big factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Except what Palestine wants is "stop building settlements in land that we CLAIM to own, but is really in your territory. And that doesn't mean just Israeli citizens, it means any Christian Palestinians too".

There's no 'claim' about it. The boundaries are explicit under the terms of the 1979 peace agreement, and Israel is not keeping to those boundaries.

Kanluwen wrote:Except what Palestine wants is "stop building settlements in land that we CLAIM to own, but is really in your territory. And that doesn't mean just Israeli citizens, it means any Christian Palestinians too".

You really need to expand your knowledge of Palestine before you get further into this.

Palestine isn't even a real place....

dogma wrote:Actually, I've always blamed the role Israel played in the Cold War/Theagan Revolution. All those old warhorses love their prior allies.

I've a feeling it also has a lot to to with how much the Christians on the Hill, in the House, and elsewhere like their free access to "The Holy Land".

Fateweaver wrote:Unleash the Berserkers.

They don't care about leveling cities, they just want blood AND SKULLS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes the 40K equivalent of a neutron bomb.

IMO, both sides act like children. Defending the atrocities committed by either side is just pathetic.

There is no good reason for the U.S. to be held hostage over a territorial dispute between children on some patch of earth that we couldn't give two $hits about. The whole thing is epic fail on our part.

Frazzled wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Unleash the Berserkers.

They don't care about leveling cities, they just want blood AND SKULLS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes the 40K equivalent of a neutron bomb.

Hilariously ineffective and useless in anything beyond sci fi writing?

The Israeli state has done some pretty nasty, and (internationally) unlawful stuff. I can't say I agree with much of their policy.

However, what it is essential to remember is that on the day the State of Israel was declared, and the British pulled out, every Arabic nation declared war on Israel, and vowed to 'drive the Jews back into the sea'.

With that in mind, umpteen wars later, you can understand why Israel may take some fairly radical steps to ensure the survival of themselves and their people. Under constant siege by kamikaze bombers, and missile attacks, they take what steps they deem are necessary to protect themselves. These steps may be oppressive to the Palestinian people, but to be perfectly honest, by this stage of the game, I don't see a peaceful resolution working out.

As shown in the initial article of this thread, the best part of the middle east is indoctrinated to hate Israel. They are raised believing in this 'zionist conspiracy', swearing to the destruction of Israel. It's now so firmly ingrained into the culture of the Middle Eastern Arabs(the Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians in particular), I think it will prove impossible to remove.

You ask why you guys support Israel? It's because the Soviets used to bankroll the Arabs, and the Israelis were your only sphere of influence in the area. With the collapse of the Union, and the conquering of Iraq, not to mention the Israeli defeat of Egypt, things have eased down there considerably. But the fact is this.

-Israel will never agree to lessen it's restrictions and remove it's settlements until the Arabic world stops lobbing missiles and condoning terrorism against it.

-The Arabic world won't stop lobbing missiles and condoning terrorism against Israel until Israel loosens restrictions and removes it's settlements.

It's a no win situation. As long as Syria and Iran continue to fund terrorist groups against Israel, Israel will not stop taking such harsh measures. And those nations won't stop doing that until Israel ceases to exist, as it's now so firmly ingrained in their culture.

Just on a sidenote, when you talk of Israel 'removing it's settlements', that's inhumanitarian in itself. When Israel last removed it's settlements, the people didn't want to leave. It was now their home. However, as they had to go, you had all these burly soldiers dragging civilians out of their homes by force to get them to move. I don't think that's right. Evicting people by force so you can re-land other people who were evicted by force? Two wrongs don't make a right. And if that doesn't encompass the whole situation, I don't know what does.

Ketara wrote:
Just on a sidenote, when you talk of Israel 'removing it's settlements', that's inhumanitarian in itself. When Israel last removed it's settlements, the people didn't want to leave. It was now their home. However, as they had to go, you had all these burly soldiers dragging civilians out of their homes by force to get them to move. I don't think that's right. Evicting people by force so you can re-land other people who were evicted by force? Two wrongs don't make a right. And if that doesn't encompass the whole situation, I don't know what does.

The thing about the settlements under dispute is that they are nearly all quite new, and were deliberately started by Israelis against Israeli law with the specific purpose of shoving Palestinians off their own land which they had occupied for hundreds of years.

Being Arabic doesn't make you a rothing nutter.

Israel has come to quite good arrangements with Jordan and Egypt.

That's true. But the relations with Egypt only came after Israel took the entire northern part of Egypt after Egypt declared war on them. The Egyptians wanted their land back, so they negotiated peace. Since then, they've been notoriously ambivalent about everything to do with Israel, which is good, because that means it's ambivalent about terrorism and war, as well as Israel.

Unfortunately, by this logic, the only way to get a lasting peace in the Middle East is the use of military force to ram it down the throats of both sides.

With regards to the removal of the Israelis, all I was saying is that forcing someone to leave their home is wrong, regardless of who's been there longer than who. If you'd told those people who'd settled on that land, and spent a sizeable portion of their lives there cultivating it that there'd been a terrible mistake, and they really should be in the equivalent of council housing, is it any wonder they didn't want to go? They'd been there long enough in their eyes, for it to become their land. So in the forcing off of those civilians, you create another group of people in exactly the same position and straits as the ones who were forced off initially. It's a no win situation. Either way, someone loses out.

Ketara wrote:-Israel will never agree to lessen it's restrictions and remove it's settlements until the Arabic world stops lobbing missiles and condoning terrorism against it.

-The Arabic world won't stop lobbing missiles and condoning terrorism against Israel until Israel loosens restrictions and removes it's settlements.

My contention is that one of those things, Israel removing its settlements, is actually quite possible, and relies on no good faith from other parties. Israel could maintain its border security and be just as safe as it is right now. It won't be a magic cureall, but it seems to me the only possible step forward.

Your contention is wrong.

Frazzled wrote:Your contention is wrong.

Well as long you're willing to give it such a detailed, substantive answer I can't help but defer to your opinion.

That's just a pathetic non-answer. Explain how removing the settlements threatens border security?

-They offered to give up the entire occupied territories and were given the Intifada in reply.

-They gave up the Gaza strip, left completely. The first rockets fell from gaza THAT DAY. It is not in the interest of Hamas to ever stop the violence as they will lose their power and their benefactors.

If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

Frazzled wrote:You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

And this is going to sound kinda horrible, but IMO part of the reason neither side wants peace is because the current situation is sustainable. Lives are lost and atrocities committed, but (again, this is terribly calloused) all these actions against the other side are ultimately just bloody noses. Without one side achieving complete victory, or both sides becoming completely tired of bloodshed and coming to the bargaining table in an honest way, there's no real resolution.

True that, also a very Roman view.

Frazzled wrote:-They offered to give up the entire occupied territories and were given the Intifada in reply.

-They gave up the Gaza strip, left completely. The first rockets fell from gaza THAT DAY. It is not in the interest of Hamas to ever stop the violence as they will lose their power and their benefactors.

If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

Reducing aggressive colonization through relocating native palestinians would still go a long way towards securing a peace. Both sides have to want to play ball, and Israel does not want to play ball. They are being attacked by illegitimate militants and extremists, but the broader tension between regimes can be solved. You have to stop the cycle at some point, and that NEVER fething HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T TRY and despite lipping the words, they have never really tried. Shuffling around the location of their military doesn't mean much when they are so eager to reenter civilian areas they have promised to move out of, and it means nothing when they are willing to engage in full scale warfare in a largely civilian population, while recklessly striking civilian targets. The hardline leadership in Israel doesn't want a peace, and they never really have. They want expansion into the disputed territories and western aid. They want to destroy the enemies of Isreal, just as the book says, not co exist with them.

Honestly, there will never be a peace while the U.S. and europe try to treat Isreal as a puppet regime. They need to stand on their own and learn to play ball.

Lordhat wrote:
I've a feeling it also has a lot to to with how much the Christians on the Hill, in the House, and elsewhere like their free access to "The Holy Land".

That was a point for Carter, but he got on pretty well with everyone involved. Nice guy, too nice to be the President, but a nice guy none the less. A credit to Christianity for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
You ask why you guys support Israel? It's because the Soviets used to bankroll the Arabs, and the Israelis were your only sphere of influence in the area.

That's not really true. The US had its hand in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Jordan. Only Syria was a near exclusive USSR pawn. The interest in Israel was a legate component from the UK, sympathy derived from the Holocaust, and the regional shell game acting in nexial harmony.

Ketara wrote:
It's a no win situation. As long as Syria and Iran continue to fund terrorist groups against Israel, Israel will not stop taking such harsh measures. And those nations won't stop doing that until Israel ceases to exist, as it's now so firmly ingrained in their culture.

The issue isn't international support. That's a red herring popularized by Neocon policy wonks (read: morons). The issue is the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people. There's an inherent paranoia attached to the Zionist complex which drives them to an irrational defense of any and all Israeli citizens.

....and Ketara wins the thread!


GG

Frazzled wrote:
If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

Why do those things matter? In order to have peace you must be willing to ignore certain transgressions as irrelevant to the notion.

There's an inherent paranoia attached to the Zionist complex

..in fairness, if any group did ever have a reason to feel somewhat persecuted then.....

not saying this excuses any/all their actions though at all.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

Why do those things matter? In order to have peace you must be willing to ignore certain transgressions as irrelevant to the notion.

What about actually"wanting" peace means that you won't be willing to "ignore certain transgressions"?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

Why do those things matter? In order to have peace you must be willing to ignore certain transgressions as irrelevant to the notion.

What about actually"wanting" peace means that you won't be willing to "ignore certain transgressions"?

GG

exactly. If Mexico were daily firing rockets into the US we'd burn their cities. Ok, maybe not under the current administration.

generalgrog wrote:
What about actually"wanting" peace means that you won't be willing to "ignore certain transgressions"?

GG

Nothing. Simply clarifying.

Frazzled wrote:exactly. If Mexico were daily firing rockets into the US we'd burn their cities. Ok, maybe not under the current administration.

And it would be quite stupid to do so. No one cares about a few random dead people. If we did, then mourning would be the national past time.

I mean, baseball sucks, but its not THAT bad.

dogma wrote:

And it would be quite stupid to do so. No one cares about a few random dead people. If we did, then mourning would be the national past time.

I mean, baseball sucks, but its not THAT bad.

polticians care about a few people.
You mean like the war of 1812-few random kidnapped people
that whole shores of tripoli thing to stop random hijackings
1911-random people killed, invasion of northern Mexico
1917-one ship sunk
9/11 two buildings went down.

Its not sane to think a country would not try to stop thousands of rockets being shot into their country.

reds8n wrote:

There's an inherent paranoia attached to the Zionist complex

..in fairness, if any group did ever have a reason to feel somewhat persecuted then.....

not saying this excuses any/all their actions though at all.

The same was said of Soviet Union.

dogma wrote: No one cares about a few random dead people. If we did, then mourning would be the national past time.

WOW, I can't believe dogma made this comment. I'm scratching my head here. The proportion of caring(and therefore reaction) about a "few random dead people" is dependent on:

1:The strength and ability of the victim to retaliate
2: the circumstances whetehr or not it was accidental or not.

Lobbing rockets from TJ into Sandiego would hardly be interpreted by the U.S. as "just an isolated accident". And to continue with my theme, if that where to happen there would be tanks and rangers, and possibly the 101st airborne dropped into TJ to find the people doing the rocket attaks, and there would also be an occupation to create a buffer zone, between Cali and Mexico. And yes there would be civilians in TJ that were killed (mostly unintential)

Sound familiar?

GG

Frazzled wrote:
polticians care about a few people.
You mean like the war of 1812-few random kidnapped people
that whole shores of tripoli thing to stop random hijackings
1911-random people killed, invasion of northern Mexico
1917-one ship sunk
9/11 two buildings went down.

Its not sane to think a country would not try to stop thousands of rockets being shot into their country.

They don't try to stop thousands of automotive deaths, murders, or medical fatalities. Why does it matter that rockets are involved?

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

And it would be quite stupid to do so. No one cares about a few random dead people. If we did, then mourning would be the national past time.

I mean, baseball sucks, but its not THAT bad.

polticians care about a few people.
You mean like the war of 1812-few random kidnapped people
that whole shores of tripoli thing to stop random hijackings
1911-random people killed, invasion of northern Mexico
1917-one ship sunk
9/11 two buildings went down.

Its not sane to think a country would not try to stop thousands of rockets being shot into their country.

You're absolutely right, and I remember the Israeli comment about the lead-in to the 7 Days War; when asked if the Syrians etc came into their territory, they replied, "No, but their shells did.

OTOH, the current situation and policy isn't solving the problem for Israel.

I think we can all agree that Israel as the Jewish nation still has a lot of sympathy based on historical reasons, and they would lose all of it if they took the course of eliminating the Palestinian problem by some kind of final solution. That just isn't a tenable course of action in the modern world.

Someone's comment, who said that the current situation is unpleasant for everyone but tenable, is probably correct.

The Palestinians and their supporters lob some rockets over the borders. The Israelis retaliate, stoking up resentment. They pursue a somewhat schizophrenic course of allowing/evicting settlers in the occupied territories, and walling off Palestinians, while incorporating a number of Muslims and Christians within a Jewish based society.

I don't know how valid the comparison with Northern Ireland is. The situation there is much better than it was, but still not 100% stable and resolved.

The key problem with the Israel-Palestine situation is that the Palestinians are to some degree affiliated with all the other Muslim polities by the concept of Ummah. (Let's not forget, though, that Islam has about as many cracks, fissures, schisms and rival interest groups as western "Christian" society.)

generalgrog wrote:
WOW, I can't believe dogma made this comment. I'm scratching my head here. The proportion of caring(and therefore reaction) about a "few random dead people" is dependent on:

1:The strength and ability of the victim to retaliate
2: the circumstances whetehr or not it was accidental or not.

You forgot willingness of the the victim to retaliate. I've been mugged before, but I held no desire to mug the person who mugged me.

generalgrog wrote:
Lobbing rockets from TJ into Sandiego would hardly be interpreted by the U.S. as "just an isolated accident". And to continue with my theme, if that where to happen there would be tanks and rangers, and possibly the 101st airborne dropped into TJ to find the people doing the rocket attaks, and there would also be an occupation to create a buffer zone, between Cali and Mexico. And yes there would be civilians in TJ that were killed (mostly unintential)

Sound familiar?

GG

True, but the US has a rather privileged notion of peace.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: No one cares about a few random dead people. If we did, then mourning would be the national past time.

WOW, I can't believe dogma made this comment. I'm scratching my head here. The proportion of caring(and therefore reaction) about a "few random dead people" is dependent on:

1:The strength and ability of the victim to retaliate
2: the circumstances whetehr or not it was accidental or not.

Lobbing rockets from TJ into Sandiego would hardly be interpreted by the U.S. as "just an isolated accident". And to continue with my theme, if that where to happen there would be tanks and rangers, and possibly the 101st airborne dropped into TJ to find the people doing the rocket attaks, and there would also be an occupation to create a buffer zone, between Cali and Mexico. And yes there would be civilians in TJ that were killed (mostly unintential)

Sound familiar?

GG

Given the number of deaths caused by mexican drug crime within our borders I think it's fairly easy to see dogmas point. The issue really though, isn't how or why people die, it's whether or not it infringes on the perception of national sovereignty. The mexican mafia isn't attacking the U.S. directly, even when they actually do so. It's not overt enough, despite being prevalent and violent. Americans will ignore real threats to tackle the loud ones, Isreal seems fairly similar.

Really? Please inform me of a democracy that would stand by while thousands of rockets were fired into their cities, including some nearing the capital city. Please cite examples.

Shuma has hit the target.

Frazzled wrote:Really? Please inform me of a democracy that would stand by while thousands of rockets were fired into their cities, including some nearing the capital city. Please cite examples.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for reason.

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

dogma wrote:You forgot willingness of the the victim to retaliate. I've been mugged before, but I held no desire to mug the person who mugged me.

Not really.. as I thought it was clear I was refering to nation states, not everyday people.

The willingness to retaliate and synonomously "the proportion of caring(and therefore reaction) is based on 1 and 2 of my post.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for reason.

Ok I get it, this is the point in the thread where dogma goes all mystical and platitudinal like. Next he will start saying things like, "Before you go left, you must first go right" or "until you learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master"

GG

Frazzled wrote:Really? Please inform me of a democracy that would stand by while thousands of rockets were fired into their cities, including some nearing the capital city. Please cite examples.

I suppose Ghandis india(before he got clubbed in the head), but he actually accomplished something, unlike isreal.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Really? Please inform me of a democracy that would stand by while thousands of rockets were fired into their cities, including some nearing the capital city. Please cite examples.

I suppose Ghandis india(before he got clubbed in the head), but he actually accomplished something, unlike isreal.

I don't recall the British Raj lobbing rockets into Calcutta or Bombay....

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Really? Please inform me of a democracy that would stand by while thousands of rockets were fired into their cities, including some nearing the capital city. Please cite examples.

I suppose Ghandis india(before he got clubbed in the head), but he actually accomplished something, unlike isreal.

I don't recall the British Raj lobbing rockets into Calcutta or Bombay....

No, but they liked to shoot people with guns and beat them with sticks. Both of which are actually a lot more effective than blind firing cold war soviet missiles.

You know, I actually have distant relatives killed in a missile attack in Israel a few years back. Yet according to Dogma, they're not much to worry about.

The problem Dogma, is that it's not just 'a few' dead people. THOUSANDS of missiles are lobbed into Israel. There are LOTS of dead people. Not just a few.

If you want a more recent example, my best friend got back from an archaeological dig there a month or so back. He left early in a hurry after not only hamas fired missiles started landing, but a bunch of terrorists took control of the place down the road from where he was staying, and executed a pair of Israeli defence soldiers on holiday in rather interesting ways.

To use the Mexico analogy, if there were launchers firing missiles into the USA on a daily basis, it would be about 24 hours(or less) before you guys stuck a small army in there.

Also, even if it was just 'a few' people. Okay. Your entire family goes over there and gets hit by a missile. You want to get the people who did it. The government though, just shrugs, and says, 'Ah, it's just a few people. Who cares?' Do you think that's the right stance to take?

Frazzled wrote:I noticed you didn't answer the question.

Because the question is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Not really.. as I thought it was clear I was refering to nation states, not everyday people.

The willingness to retaliate and synonomously "the proportion of caring(and therefore reaction) is based on 1 and 2 of my post.

GG

It really isn't. I cared that people were killed in the course of 9/11, but I didn't really feel the need to retaliate.

generalgrog wrote:
Ok I get it, this is the point in the thread where dogma goes all mystical and platitudinal like. Next he will start saying things like, "Before you go left, you must first go right" or "until you learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master"

GG

Learn to read. Reason is not the same thing as proof. I'm asking for one thing, reason, as opposed to another, proof. This isn't terribly complicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't recall the British Raj lobbing rockets into Calcutta or Bombay....

Everyone is so obsessed with this notion of the rocket, and I can't quite figure out why. If I started lobbing 9mm at Mexico would it be reasonable for them to go to war with the US?

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for reason.

Ok I get it, this is the point in the thread where dogma goes all mystical and platitudinal like. Next he will start saying things like, "Before you go left, you must first go right" or "until you learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master"

I love that movie.

reds8n wrote:

There's an inherent paranoia attached to the Zionist complex

..in fairness, if any group did ever have a reason to feel somewhat persecuted then.....

not saying this excuses any/all their actions though at all.

Jews claim to be persecuted all the time. It annoys people so much they persecute them. Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

There's a distinction between Jews being persecuted, and a 'Jewish' state claiming to represent the whole of the Jewish faith.

I can't count the number of times I've been called antisemitic for my criticism of Israel.

dogma wrote:There's a distinction between Jews being persecuted, and a 'Jewish' state claiming to represent the whole of the Jewish faith.

I can't count the number of times I've been called antisemitic for my criticism of Israel.

I can't tell you the number of times I have been called antisemitic....

I can't tell you how many times I've been called anti-illegal-immigrant. Not that I mind because those people are right.

I can't tell you how many times I've been called aggressively violent. Mostly because I don't remember a large portion of my life.

Ah, alcohol....

Frazzled wrote:-They offered to give up the entire occupied territories and were given the Intifada in reply.

-They gave up the Gaza strip, left completely. The first rockets fell from gaza THAT DAY. It is not in the interest of Hamas to ever stop the violence as they will lose their power and their benefactors.

If this awesome idea was, well awesome, why exactly are they still getting rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon again? Why did Hezbullah kidnap the Isreali soldier again?

You cannot have peace until both sides want peace.

None of which, in any way shape or form, explained how rocket attacks would become more deadly if Israel were to start following the 1979 peace agreement and stop expanding into Palestinian territory.

Please explain how the threat to Israel is worsened if Israel stops expanding into territory it doesn't own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:exactly. If Mexico were daily firing rockets into the US we'd burn their cities. Ok, maybe not under the current administration.

If Mexico fired rockets into the US, I'd support the US in retaliation focussed on removing Mexico's ability to fire more rockets. But quarantine restrictions focussed entirely on punishing the civilian population wouldn't be acceptable.

And regardless of how many rockets were fired into the US, I think it would be a good idea for the US to stop building settlements in Mexico.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Ok I get it, this is the point in the thread where dogma goes all mystical and platitudinal like. Next he will start saying things like, "Before you go left, you must first go right" or "until you learn to master your rage, your rage will become your master"

No, the point was that to discredit the IRA and secure peace, the UK had to stop with heavy handed police and military responses. It's a long and bloody process, but it will never even start until violent, broad retaliation is taken off the table.

And we're nowhere near that point, as so many people still believe that because Israel needs to protect it's borders, it can be allowed to continue expanding into someone else's country.

dogma wrote:Everyone is so obsessed with this notion of the rocket, and I can't quite figure out why. If I started lobbing 9mm at Mexico would it be reasonable for them to go to war with the US?

Two things, the rocket was just for the sake of conversation. Shuma was comparing the British Raj in India to the Israeli-Palestinian situation...which is so out of left field it isn't even funny. I don't care what it is you are lobbing, or terrorizing or whatever, the conditions of British India are not at all comparable to the current state of the Levant, even you must agree with that... Secondly, you agreed with his comparison of the Mexican drug wars on the border in the same way, and I am happy to say that you are dead wrong in your agreement, and he in his comparison. To compare Hamas, which acts as the governing element of the Gaza Strip to Mexican drug gangs is completely ridiculous. Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, albeit unrecognized by any government, as a democratically elected government. The Mexican drug cartels are decidedly not. They in no way represent the will of the Mexican government, nation or people, whereas Hamas does in some way represent the will of many of the Palestinians that live in the Gaza Strip.

Ketara wrote:You know, I actually have distant relatives killed in a missile attack in Israel a few years back. Yet according to Dogma, they're not much to worry about.

The problem Dogma, is that it's not just 'a few' dead people. THOUSANDS of missiles are lobbed into Israel. There are LOTS of dead people. Not just a few.

Around 700 Israeli citizens have died from Palestinian actions since 2000. On the other hand, almost 5,000 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israelis in the same timeframe.

To the extent that retaliation is necessary, it appears Palestine needs to increase their actions. But of course, retaliation is about the worst possible reason for national policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:Everyone is so obsessed with this notion of the rocket, and I can't quite figure out why. If I started lobbing 9mm at Mexico would it be reasonable for them to go to war with the US?

Two things, the rocket was just for the sake of conversation. Shuma was comparing the British Raj in India to the Israeli-Palestinian situation...which is so out of left field it isn't even funny. I don't care what it is you are lobbing, or terrorizing or whatever, the conditions of British India are not at all comparable to the current state of the Levant, even you must agree with that...

It is an odd comparison at first, but one interesting fact jumps out at me. The Indian National army was raised in 1942 and consisted of Indian Nationalists directly supported by the Japanese. It had about 7,000 troops, and by the time it folded it has suffered around 2,000 casualties. The casualties they inflicted on the British controlled Indian forces were minimal, not through lack of intent but lack of competence (in fact, the ratio of casualties inflicted to those suffered lines up nicely with the Irsaeli to Palestine ratio).

But despite having an armed insurrection directly supplied by a foreign nation they were at war with, just two years later the British were able to manage a peaceful transition of power out of India.

It's amazing what's possible when peace is actually the priority.

Ketara wrote:
The problem Dogma, is that it's not just 'a few' dead people. THOUSANDS of missiles are lobbed into Israel. There are LOTS of dead people. Not just a few.

There are thousands of missiles being lobbed, but only a few people are being killed.

Ketara wrote:
To use the Mexico analogy, if there were launchers firing missiles into the USA on a daily basis, it would be about 24 hours(or less) before you guys stuck a small army in there.

Yep, but it would still be stupid.

Ketara wrote:
Also, even if it was just 'a few' people. Okay. Your entire family goes over there and gets hit by a missile. You want to get the people who did it. The government though, just shrugs, and says, 'Ah, it's just a few people. Who cares?' Do you think that's the right stance to take?

Yes.

Preemptive: I've been to Israel. I've had friends killed in rocket attacks. Don't make this about experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:To compare Hamas, which acts as the governing element of the Gaza Strip to Mexican drug gangs is completely ridiculous. Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, albeit unrecognized by any government, as a democratically elected government.

Yep. How is that distinct from a criminal syndicate which holds power by virtue of fear?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The Mexican drug cartels are decidedly not. They in no way represent the will of the Mexican government, nation or people, whereas Hamas does in some way represent the will of many of the Palestinians that live in the Gaza Strip.

I don't agree. I feel the cartels represent the Mexican people quite well.

Secondly, you agreed with his comparison of the Mexican drug wars on the border in the same way, and I am happy to say that you are dead wrong in your agreement, and he in his comparison. To compare Hamas, which acts as the governing element of the Gaza Strip to Mexican drug gangs is completely ridiculous. Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, albeit unrecognized by any government, as a democratically elected government. The Mexican drug cartels are decidedly not. They in no way represent the will of the Mexican government, nation or people, whereas Hamas does in some way represent the will of many of the Palestinians that live in the Gaza Strip.

You're mischaracterizing my argument. I was focusing on public reaction to innocent death, not the makeup of the forces implied as causing said deaths. My statement was about the causes behind public and national reaction to violence, and not the causes of the violence. Cartel warfare has claimed more lives than Hamas rocket attacks, yet receives a order of magnitude less focus. Why is this? And why in the fact of far more plentiful and numerous causes of human death do nations tend to prioritize the overt aggression of small groups of humans? The rocket attacks in Isreal are statistically meaningless, they are so far and few that we have higher murder rates in many states than they do with poorly kept soviet dud rockets that rarely hit anything raining down on them. Where is our public outcry?

My post was in reference to the discussion about the actual meaningful impact of the rocket attacks themselves. Which realistically is none. They're big, loud, and scary to think about. But so are tornados. They're not worth prolonging a conflict (Which by in large incites those rocket attacks), and they most certainly aren't the reason Israel keeps ignoring it's own treaties.

Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, albeit unrecognized by any government, as a democratically elected government. The Mexican drug cartels are decidedly not. They in no way represent the will of the Mexican government, nation or people, whereas Hamas does in some way represent the will of many of the Palestinians that live in the Gaza Strip.

That should probably tell you something about the quality of Israeli compassion in the gaza strip. When a militant extremist group whose existence almost certainly guarantees conflict is better than nothing. Though I think you underestimate the actual power of the cartels, both militaristically and politically, as mexico is finding out now.

I don't agree. I feel the cartels represent the Mexican people quite well.

Not sure how I feel about this comment. Care to clarify it a bit?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't agree. I feel the cartels represent the Mexican people quite well.

Not sure how I feel about this comment. Care to clarify it a bit?

There is little distinction between a popularly elected government, and a popularly accepted cartel.

At least if we're going to go the route of representation.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't agree. I feel the cartels represent the Mexican people quite well.

Not sure how I feel about this comment. Care to clarify it a bit?

There is little distinction between a popularly elected government, and a popularly accepted cartel.

At least if we're going to go the route of representation.

Popularly accepted and popularly elected when in reference to Mexican cartels and democratic leadership are so mind bendingly different that it makes my eyes bleed out of my fingers, into my keyboard, though my landline, into the fiber optic networks connecting states, into your land lines, through your computer and into your screen just so I can look at you and see if you're typing it with a straight face. I bet the north koreans popularly accept that living in North Korea is pretty awful but theres not much they can do. I bet the photographer under the Hindenburge accepted that it was pretty lame that a flaming blimp was falling on him. This is a far cry from the dude that walks into ballot box and plugs in a vote for Joe Hamas on the platform that they care more about Palestinian citizens than Fatah or Isreal (The reality of that vote set in pretty quick though when that government started to break down and Hamas went back to their old tricks after failing to go as legit as they could), and I certainly doubt that joe mexico is going to vote for La Familia over Felipe Calderon.

I'll just say that I don't agree. Culture is funny that way.

I accept that Republicans exist, and I vote in such a fashion that endorses their existence, but I do not vote for Republicans.

ShumaGorath wrote:Popularly accepted and popularly elected when in reference to Mexican cartels and democratic leadership are so mind bendingly different that it makes my eyes bleed out of my fingers, into my keyboard, though my landline, into the fiber optic networks connecting states, into your land lines, through your computer and into your screen just so I can look at you and see if you're typing it with a straight face. I bet the north koreans popularly accept that living in North Korea is pretty awful but theres not much they can do. I bet the photographer under the Hindenburge accepted that it was pretty lame that a flaming blimp was falling on him. This is a far cry from the dude that walks into ballot box and plugs in a vote for Joe Hamas on the platform that they care more about Palestinian citizens than Fatah or Isreal (The reality of that vote set in pretty quick though when that government started to break down and Hamas went back to their old tricks after failing to go as legit as they could), and I certainly doubt that joe mexico is going to vote for La Familia over Felipe Calderon.

Should you be held responsible for the Bush admin? If not, should individuals in Palestine be held responsible for Hamas?

Huzzizle my nizzle.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Popularly accepted and popularly elected when in reference to Mexican cartels and democratic leadership are so mind bendingly different that it makes my eyes bleed out of my fingers, into my keyboard, though my landline, into the fiber optic networks connecting states, into your land lines, through your computer and into your screen just so I can look at you and see if you're typing it with a straight face. I bet the north koreans popularly accept that living in North Korea is pretty awful but theres not much they can do. I bet the photographer under the Hindenburge accepted that it was pretty lame that a flaming blimp was falling on him. This is a far cry from the dude that walks into ballot box and plugs in a vote for Joe Hamas on the platform that they care more about Palestinian citizens than Fatah or Isreal (The reality of that vote set in pretty quick though when that government started to break down and Hamas went back to their old tricks after failing to go as legit as they could), and I certainly doubt that joe mexico is going to vote for La Familia over Felipe Calderon.

Should you be held responsible for the Bush admin? If not, should individuals in Palestine be held responsible for Hamas?

So this segued from a comparison of a drug cartel to an elected government to a comparison of two governments? Well in that case no, you shouldn't. Unless you were complicit in some sort of illegal act yourself, in which case you should.

I'll just say that I don't agree. Culture is funny that way.

I accept that Republicans exist, and I vote in such a fashion that endorses their existence, but I do not vote for Republicans.

Yes, but thats accepting the political reality in a representative democratic system, whereby in peaceful exchange of information and through the act of voting your will can be made manifest into the changes you seek. I don't understand how that really compares to the thought of strongarm cartels that rule and profit through fear, violence, addiction, and subterfuge. Accepting one is far from the same as accepting the other. Argue the real intentions and civil values of Hamas all you want, but they were elected, and will likely someday lose that status through that same procedure. If they continue to de legimize themselves (didn't the militant wing kind of split off from the governing one?) then it will continue to lend credence to what you're saying. But you're using far to general a set of terms to compare two entirely dissimilar things (democratic governance to strongarm crime syndicates).

So are we stuck on the difference between endorsement and acceptance, or the difference between violence and ambivalence?

dogma wrote:So are we stuck on the difference between endorsement and acceptance, or the difference between violence and ambivalence?

I think endorsement and acceptance.

You win universe...I agree with Shuma...

This is quite sad really, but then again this is what I expect from that part of the world. And for part I have a long time ago given up any hope for peace in the middel east.
Why one migth ask? Well they have been figthing there since the dawn of time, let them wipe each other out I say

Anshal wrote:This is quite sad really, but then again this is what I expect from that part of the world. And for part I have a long time ago given up any hope for peace in the middel east.
Why one migth ask? Well they have been figthing there since the dawn of time, let them wipe each other out I say

Never shoulda' stopped building the Neutron Bomb....

dogma wrote:Huzzizle my nizzle.

My words were stolen! My intellectual property was stolen! The internet will not stand for such a thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:So this segued from a comparison of a drug cartel to an elected government to a comparison of two governments? Well in that case no, you shouldn't. Unless you were complicit in some sort of illegal act yourself, in which case you should.

Maybe I haven't been following, but if a person can't be held directly responsible for their government (whether democratic or not) then what does it matter?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I noticed you didn't answer the question.

Because the question is irrelevant.

bullsh t. It means you blew smoke out your ass and can't answer the question. When has a democracy sat by while thousands of rockets were shot into its territory. Please cite examples.

sebster wrote:I think it would be a good idea for the US to stop building settlements in Mexico.

You mean like in Texas,Newmexico,Arizona,California, and Colorado?

Many Mexicans feel like those states are still part of Mexico, but the U.S. stole it from them.

GG

Frazzled wrote:bullsh t. It means you blew smoke out your ass and can't answer the question. When has a democracy sat by while thousands of rockets were shot into its territory. Please cite examples.

Yeah! It's really poor form when someone ignores a question because they can't answer it! Why on this very same thread I asked a fellow a question and he hasn't got back to me. The question was quite simple;

"Please explain how the threat to Israel is worsened if Israel stops expanding into territory it doesn't own."

Now, that fellow's name was, hang on, give me a second... Frazzled. I think you should join with me in demanding this Frazzled character steps up and answers the question. After your insistence that dogma answer your question it would only be consistent.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bullsh t. It means you blew smoke out your ass and can't answer the question. When has a democracy sat by while thousands of rockets were shot into its territory. Please cite examples.

Yeah! It's really poor form when someone ignores a question because they can't answer it! Why on this very same thread I asked a fellow a question and he hasn't got back to me. The question was quite simple;

"Please explain how the threat to Israel is worsened if Israel stops expanding into territory it doesn't own."

Now, that fellow's name was, hang on, give me a second... Frazzled. I think you should join with me in demanding this Frazzled character steps up and answers the question. After your insistence that dogma answer your question it would only be consistent.

Sorry didn't see it. Dogma saw it.

My response.
Its not, unless the rule of the gun - aka history says they now own it. For example if they build a buffer zone that helps their security-enter this permitere and you're machine gunned cuts down on infiltrators.
Having said that, givng up territory has proven fruitless since the Egyptian agreement. They are still attacked out of Gaza after retreating years ago. They are still attacked out of Lebanon-you know a supposedly foreign country with no reason to attack them.

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:I think it would be a good idea for the US to stop building settlements in Mexico.

You mean like in Texas,Newmexico,Arizona,California, and Colorado?

Many Mexicans feel like those states are still part of Mexico, but the U.S. stole it from them.

Sure, but how many settlements were built in Mexico by US citizens in the last ten years?

If you believe those areas were part of Mexico or Greater Aztlan, a whole freaking bunch.

As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA
http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/nationalConstitution.pdf
I like this part

Preamble
Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to
promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on
indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the
Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I'll go back to anyone. please identify a democracy that has had thousands of rockets launched into its terriroty that did not respond militarily.

Please don't say India/Pakistan else I'll have to remind you of the two wars they had and the constant threat of war between them, stopped now because they both have nukes.

sebster wrote:Sure, but how many settlements were built in Mexico by US citizens in the last ten years?

I think you missed the point. To many Mexicans, those states I mentioned are still part of Mexico, and the gringos are occupiers. So in their eyes, any new subdivision, houses is settlement of their land.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:Sure, but how many settlements were built in Mexico by US citizens in the last ten years?

I think you missed the point. To many Mexicans, those states I mentioned are still part of Mexico, and the gringos are occupiers. So in their eyes, any new subdivision, houses is settlement of their land.

GG

If they want it, come take it back. Go ahead I dare you. Rednecks with shotguns are more than capable of fending of a Mexican army. Look at the Alamo, we totally won that one.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Anshal wrote:This is quite sad really, but then again this is what I expect from that part of the world. And for part I have a long time ago given up any hope for peace in the middel east.
Why one migth ask? Well they have been figthing there since the dawn of time, let them wipe each other out I say

Never shoulda' stopped building the Neutron Bomb....

I don't think any of you actually know what neutron bombs are.

Yes.

Preemptive: I've been to Israel. I've had friends killed in rocket attacks. Don't make this about experience.

Then I guess there's nothing more to be said on the matter. I can't see how you would devalue (in my eyes) the lives of your friends so far as to shrug it off, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You're an articulate debater, but I guess we will never see eye to eye on this.

If France started lobbing missiles over the channel and killing British citizens, I'd be the first person to advocate a military expedition to clear the launchers and make a buffer zone, but that's simply because I don't believe that civilians should have to risk active random death from afar daily. And don't bother using traffic examples, etc as a comparison, because it would be a terrible analogy.

I guess you can quote loss numbers, but does having lost more lives make it more of a tragedy for the Palestinians? No. The answer is, it's all a tragedy. You don't get greater or lesser degrees of them. Trying to say that having lost more lives=greater tragedy is a cold, unhuman way of lookign at things. If you do that, you're no better than a war general who at the end of the battle, subtracts the enemies casualties from his own, and if the result is a positive number, declares it a victory.

Then I guess there's nothing more to be said on the matter. I can't see how you would devalue (in my eyes) the lives of your friends so far as to shrug it off, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You're an articulate debater, but I guess we will never see eye to eye on this.

I've known people killed in storms, that doesn't mean we should bomb the sky. There's a point at which you need to look at something objectively, and for isreal that should be now. They aren't stopping the rocket attacks with military action and strong emotion, they are fueling them. It does not serve the dead to perpetuate the cycle that caused them to lose their lives.

Frazzled wrote:
bullsh t. It means you blew smoke out your ass and can't answer the question. When has a democracy sat by while thousands of rockets were shot into its territory. Please cite examples.

No, it means the question is irrelevant. I'm asking for reason, not proof. Last time I checked "because other people do it too" is not a valid reason. If it were, then rape, murder, and genocide would all be acceptable actions.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I think endorsement and acceptance.

Fair enough. I maintain that acceptance involves a kind of tacit consent such that we can consider it comparable to endorsement.

Ketara wrote: Trying to say that having lost more lives=greater tragedy is a cold, unhuman way of lookign at things.

It is indeed, but that doesn't make it unnecessary. At some point you have to engage the matter from a rational angle if the problem is to be rectified. If accepting a few civilian deaths will prevent a war in which many more will be killed, then the deaths should be accepted.

dogma wrote:It is indeed, but that doesn't make it unnecessary. At some point you have to engage the matter from a rational angle if the problem is to be rectified. If accepting a few civilian deaths will prevent a war in which many more will be killed, then the deaths should be accepted.

So would you accept the Israelis killing off all the Palestinians in order to prevent war? That fits the rational of your argument...

Well, that would be war, so it isn't exactly preventing anything.

So Palestinians launching attacks isn't war? Is it really war if the Israelis kill all the defenseless civilians? And if they are all dead it prevents any future wars...

It is indeed, but that doesn't make it unnecessary. At some point you have to engage the matter from a rational angle if the problem is to be rectified. If accepting a few civilian deaths will prevent a war in which many more will be killed, then the deaths should be accepted.

Agreed. However, 700 deaths is not a light statistic, we haven't lost that many soldiers in the Middle East yet. And when things like missiles become commonplace, then certain measures must be taken to rectify the situation. One cannot sit still on top of a mound of 700 dead bodies. And as it's not just a single day of it, but a continuous state of affairs, just swallowing it is an impossible course of action.

You say that it would prevent the starting of a war, but to be perfectly honest, looking at the scale of casualities, it would not be unfeasible to say a state of war already exists between both sides. One that is, unfortuantely, self-perpetuating. Removing settlers would in no way guarantee a cessation of hostilties. It's gone on too long on both sides for that. As I said before, I believe that the hatred in the Middle East is too firmly ingrained to just be waved away, and will continue until one side is rendered unable to make war.

JEB_Stuart wrote:So Palestinians launching attacks isn't war?

No, difference of scale. If I kill a Jewish person I haven't gone to war with the Jews.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Is it really war if the Israelis kill all the defenseless civilians? And if they are all dead it prevents any future wars...

Yes. Though I doubt it would prevent all future wars. Simply all potential wars with the Palestinians.

dogma wrote:No, difference of scale. If I kill a Jewish person I haven't gone to war with the Jews.

Neither is the Israeli military killing a few Palestinians. Besides you yourself have already dismissed the idea of scale as a relevant factor. So, I am waiting on a valid argument...

dogma wrote:Yes. Though I doubt it would prevent all future wars. Simply all potential wars with the Palestinians.

And that is the issue at hand...

dogma wrote:

No, difference of scale. If I kill a Jewish person I haven't gone to war with the Jews.

In terms of scale here, I'd say 5700 dead people is a good place to start. If you want to get into technicalities, Hamas has declared that they want to kill all the Jews as an organization several times, and Israeli has always beena t war with terrorists. So yeah, I'd say that's a state of war....

dogma wrote:

Yes. Though I doubt it would prevent all future wars. Simply all potential wars with the Palestinians.

Interesting. So from the logical perspective here, Israel should simply kill all the Palestinians. After all, who would go to war over them? I don't see any of the Middle Eastern powers doing much other than denunciation(after all,they all belong to so many different factions, and genocide is a common thing out there).

Ketara wrote:
You say that it would prevent the starting of a war, but to be perfectly honest, looking at the scale of casualities, it would not be unfeasible to say a state of war already exists between both sides.

True, it may be better to claim that acceptance would put an end to a war.

Ketara wrote:
One that is, unfortuantely, self-perpetuating. Removing settlers would in no way guarantee a cessation of hostilties. It's gone on too long on both sides for that. As I said before, I believe that the hatred in the Middle East is too firmly ingrained to just be waved away, and will continue until one side is rendered unable to make war.

There are no guarantees in these matters; asking for them is simply unreasonable.

Keep in mind I'm not claiming that Israel should stop working to prevent rocket attacks, only that they should not be considered as acts of war.

Agreed. However, 700 deaths is not a light statistic, we haven't lost that many soldiers in the Middle East yet.

That happens when you basically leave it, save for a few dudes sitting in their bunkers in a city.

And when things like missiles become commonplace, then certain measures must be taken to rectify the situation.

And what happens when those measures not only fail to rectify the situation, but seem to exacerbate it, such as the Iranian offensive not long ago? Do you just keep going with your failing plan so that people can feel good about themselves?

ou say that it would prevent the starting of a war, but to be perfectly honest, looking at the scale of casualities, it would not be unfeasible to say a state of war already exists between both sides. One that is, unfortuantely, self-perpetuating. Removing settlers would in no way guarantee a cessation of hostilties. It's gone on too long on both sides for that.

True, it's not a cureall, but halting an illegal action which the entire world is against and which you have signed treaties stating you wouldn't would go a long way towards being a start.

As I said before, I believe that the hatred in the Middle East is too firmly ingrained to just be waved away, and will continue until one side is rendered unable to make war.

Hatred isn't generational. Once those who have experienced the reason to hate are dead then the hatred and hostilities cause disappears. An engrained social state can quickly end when its root causes are disrupted or removed.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Neither is the Israeli military killing a few Palestinians. Besides you yourself have already dismissed the idea of scale as a relevant factor. So, I am waiting on a valid argument...

My entire argument hinges on scale. I'm not sure where you think I dismissed it.

Taken from your arguments in other threads. Remember the whole religions as cause of deaths thing? You dismissed scale as a useful tool to measure right and wrong. Considering this is a thread on right and wrong, and now scale as well, I just applied your arguments from another thread. Besides, in a matter of scale, there are less Palestinians then Israelis, so it would be less inhumane to kill off the Palestinians simply for the sake of the region...

Ketara wrote:
In terms of scale here, I'd say 5700 dead people is a good place to start. If you want to get into technicalities, Hamas has declared that they want to kill all the Jews as an organization several times, and Israeli has always beena t war with terrorists. So yeah, I'd say that's a state of war....

Even if it is the conversation has hinged on the notion that we're out to put an end to hostility. Simply acknowledging that hostility exists is implicit within that notion.

Ketara wrote:
Interesting. So from the logical perspective here, Israel should simply kill all the Palestinians. After all, who would go to war over them? I don't see any of the Middle Eastern powers doing much other than denunciation(after all,they all belong to so many different factions, and genocide is a common thing out there).

If killing all the Palestinians is practical, and capable of reducing the aggregated number of deaths, then yes.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Taken from your arguments in other threads. Remember the whole religions as cause of deaths thing? You dismissed scale as a useful tool to measure right and wrong. Considering this is a thread on right and wrong, and now scale as well, I just applied your arguments from another thread.

I'm not talking about right and wrong here. I'm talking about practicality and productivity.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Besides, in a matter of scale, there are less Palestinians then Israelis, so it would be less inhumane to kill off the Palestinians simply for the sake of the region...

There are more Palestinians than Israelis: ~ 10 million.

dogma wrote:There are more Palestinians than Israelis: ~ 10 million.

Nope, there are more Israelis. 7.5 million Israelis, and around 4 million Palestinians

If we're speaking purely in terms of practicality then, the best thing to do would be to force all the Palestinians to leave, or kill them.

However, as that's impossible on humane grounds, the next logical step is to erect a bloody big wall between 'them' and 'us' and stop them coming over. Which they've duly done. In the case of missiles though, it only protracts the issue.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:There are more Palestinians than Israelis: ~ 10 million.

Nope, there are more Israelis. 7.5 million Israelis, and around 4 million Palestinians

I'm counting Palestinians not residing in the OT. Link.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:If we're speaking purely in terms of practicality then, the best thing to do would be to force all the Palestinians to leave, or kill them.

However, as that's impossible on humane grounds, the next logical step is to erect a bloody big wall between 'them' and 'us' and stop them coming over. Which they've duly done. In the case of missiles though, it only protracts the issue.

That's the thing, I'm not convinced that the most practical option is to kill them all. Doing so requires quite a bit of time and money. Plus its unlikely to be 100% effective. The same applies to the wall.

That happens when you basically leave it, save for a few dudes sitting in their bunkers in a city.

Oof. Harsh. That isn't happening in Afghanistan, mate. Our forces just had their bloodiest month there. I think it has less to do with 'sitting in bunkers', and more to do with the actual British troop numbers, which aren't as high as US numbers obviously - but then we weren't attacked. Until after we followed the US into Afghanistan and Iraq, that is.
But leaving the Middle East? Well, we handed Basra over to the Iraqis and it seems to have improved - good for them! I'd rather see them die for their own country, than our lads dying for it. The Americans seem to have taken this approach with regard to Basra since the handover, by monitoring and assisting Iraqi troops instead of doing their fighting for them. Contrast this with Baghdad - still carbombs going off with almost monotonous regularity. More white faces on the street is not neccesarily a good thing - the British armed forces have more experience of police actions, so that probably explains the 'bunker' thing. Maintaining a low profile but controlling the flow of people and weapons by securing the borders worked during the Malaya Emergency - it seemed like our forces were trying do do a similar thing in Basra, but were hamstrung by Gordon fething Brown and his left-wing hatred for our military. They didn't have enough support - men or materiel - to do the job effectively.
As allies we Brits (plus Aussies, NZ's and Canadians) may not be perfect, but our military DOES come with a wealth of experience of fighting (and winning) in any terrain, under any conditions. Plus, who else you got on your side?

The French?

dogma wrote:
I'm counting Palestinians not residing in the OT. Link

So we are not counting the Jews that are outside of the Levant as well? Which incidentally still outnumber the Palestinians...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_People

JEB_Stuart wrote:So we are not counting the Jews that are outside of the Levant as well? Which incidentally still outnumber the Palestinians...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_People

A Jew is not necessarily an Israeli. Indeed, an Israeli is not necessarily a Jew. Palestinian is not distinct from itself.

Considering the Hebrews are a people, and by Israeli law are extended citizenship to Israel, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for them. Besides, you can't assume that every Palestinian outside of Palestine has any legal tie to said nation. If you are going to generalize for one, you are gonna have to extend it to both...

That's not how Israeli citizenship works. All Jews are eligible for citizenship, but are not automatically considered citizens.

Incidentally, I'm not making any assumptions about legal ties. I'm simply stating that there are more Palestinians than Israelis.

Frazzled wrote:Sorry didn't see it. Dogma saw it.

Not a problem, hope you took my teasing in good humour, sometimes that can be lost over the internet.

My response.
Its not, unless the rule of the gun - aka history says they now own it. For example if they build a buffer zone that helps their security-enter this permitere and you're machine gunned cuts down on infiltrators.
Having said that, givng up territory has proven fruitless since the Egyptian agreement. They are still attacked out of Gaza after retreating years ago. They are still attacked out of Lebanon-you know a supposedly foreign country with no reason to attack them.

First up, there’s a buffer zone in place right now. It tightly controls entry into Israel from Palestine. The settlements do not improve the buffer zone, or impact it in any way.

Secondly, the rule of the gun says the Palestinians are going to keep firing rockets into Israel. That’s a basic reality and isn’t going to change no matter what government administers Palestine – as no government has the resources to stop all non-state actors firing rockets.

At which point Israel needs to begin to make choices, and a big one is whether peace is more important than taking someone else’s land. It is dishonest to pretend the situation is anything else.

Frazzled wrote:If you believe those areas were part of Mexico or Greater Aztlan, a whole freaking bunch.

No, you’re missing the point. The war with Mexico was fought, the treaty signed and the new border agreed to. It may not have been particularly fair, but it was settled a long time ago. The land being settled by Israelis right now is land that Israel has no claim to. Israel has signed treaties recognising their borders, and yet there are settlements being expanded right now on Palestinian land.

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:Sure, but how many settlements were built in Mexico by US citizens in the last ten years?

I think you missed the point. To many Mexicans, those states I mentioned are still part of Mexico, and the gringos are occupiers. So in their eyes, any new subdivision, houses is settlement of their land.

GG

If a border dispute that was settled more than a hundred years still has activitsts, can’t you see how intense the issue might be for people who are having their land taken away from them right now, in the present?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Considering the Hebrews are a people, and by Israeli law are extended citizenship to Israel, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for them. Besides, you can't assume that every Palestinian outside of Palestine has any legal tie to said nation. If you are going to generalize for one, you are gonna have to extend it to both...

The Palestinian guy at my work who came out here decades ago and never wants to go back... he shouldn't count. But a Palestinian who's lived with his family in a refugee camp in Jordan for 30 years and just wants to return home? He should be counted even if he isn't living there right now.

I never said who should or shouldn't count...that was Dogma. Its impossible to determine just how many should or should not, and that goes for both Jews and Palestinians. I think, for the sake of discussion, we should be more realistic and simplistic, and limit it to the population of both regions...

The numbers don't change much, as the vast majority of the Palestinian people live in the region. Only about 400k living abroad.

Fantastic.

Ahh the Middle East. Like a hotbed of coals, except those coals explode when stepped on. And when they explode, laval shoots out with the explosives, burning everything stupid enough to be there...

/sarcasm off...

Well, we are technically the enemy, so I guess that's ok...