Doctadeth wrote: Why yes, it is very much more of a complex issue then simply stopping firing rockets.
Absolutely.
I will concede that the israeli blockade on gaza city is not helpful towards inciting violence their way. However, palestinian overtures have been not to find a peaceful solution, but rather using civilian casualties to try and discredit israeli attempts to halt violent acts.
Honestly it depends on the Israeli and Palestinian governments in power at that time. Wikileaks recently exposed a private communication from Hamas to the Israeli government, in which Hamas conceded basically everything. Every land claim, every security restriction. Israel rejected it out of hand.
Why not just have a DMZ? patrolled by UN forces or NATO forces which counter any rocket strikes or military attack by either side? Still works for north Korea and those guys have Nukes.
Look at the range of even the low end rockets, and then look at the size of the region. It'd be nice but unfortunately it's not really practical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: You always said "the rocket attacks are wrong, but...", the "but" kind of disavows your previous condemnations...
Oh, so when I state that the rockets are wrong, you just tell me I don't really mean that. That is a unique approach to debate.
The rocket attacks are just the newest way that terrorists found to continue their campaign of terror, since the blockade actually put a cramp on their previous "human being filled with explosives" method of delivery. Trying to pretend that they are solely a reaction to Israel's latest actions is naive at best, yes the escalation in numbers may be a reaction the the killing of the Hamas leader, but they had never really stopped before that, had they?
Duh. If you'd cared to read the thread you'd have noticed I also stated that if the Iron Dome proved effective, then you'd just see Palestinians go back to the old methods of sneaking a bomb over the border.
Though I expect now you'll just claim I didn't really mean that, either.
Repeat after me: its not their country, it never was their country. The Palestinians themselves reneged on the UN division of the region in 1947 and again reneged on the division of the area offered to them in 2000.
Repeat after me - when you're born somewhere you have a basic right to live there, and have a government from there. And any political nonsense about what your grandparent's generation did is stupid bs spouted by people who think politics matters more than people's livelihoods.
I think that they don't deserve to have self governance because they actually refused it again in 2000 and also because in the first elections that they had, they chose to vote for the party that had "pushing all the Jews to the sea" as their political platform... That doesn't sound like a group wiling to enter negotiations to me...
And again we have people confusing political theatre with political reality.
Accept this one basic piece thing - Israel gives money to Hamas to goven Palestine, provide hospitals, schools, stuff like that. Once you accept that, you have to either claim the unbelievably stupid - that Israel would give money to an organisation absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Israel, or that Hamas, like Fatah before it, makes a lot of anti-Israel claims that it has no interest nor ability to follow through on.
And the Palestinians have always rejected that partition, if they would accept it, then there would be peace, they would have their own country and THEN we could talk about Israeli expansionism.
You really know nothing of the peace process at all, do you?
And why is the argument nonsense? Did you condemn the UK every time they built something in Northern Ireland just because the IRA didn't like it?
If they were changing the borders, then they would have been worthy of scorn.
Hamas needs to grow the feth up and realise that if 60+ years of violence didn't solve things, maybe they should give the diplomatic way a try one of these days...
You really, honestly know absolutely nothing of the peace process... and yet you want to go on line and shout about it anyway. Remarkable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Sorta on topic...
Morsi is now a de-facto Dictator now...
We want this guy to facilitate any Peace agreement between Gaza and Israel?
The recent decrees by Morsi are very disappointing, but why would that change anything in regards to Israel and Palestine? Weren't you lot fine with Mubarak when he was dictator?
Because Mubarak doesn't wish to destroy Israel.
Muslin Brotherhood on the other hand were quite vocal in opposition to Israel.
whembly wrote: Because Mubarak doesn't wish to destroy Israel.
Muslin Brotherhood on the other hand were quite vocal in opposition to Israel.
For about the fortieth time in this thread.... political theatre and political reality are different things. For all the noise from the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi has maintained the quarantine on the Egyptian, just like Mubarak did. Because just like Mubarak, Morsi needs those American dollars to keep his government functioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Do you really not see the difference between Mubarek and Morsi when it comes to Israel?
At this point, no. What has he done that's any different?
Doctadeth wrote: Why yes, it is very much more of a complex issue then simply stopping firing rockets.
I will concede that the israeli blockade on gaza city is not helpful towards inciting violence their way. However, palestinian overtures have been not to find a peaceful solution, but rather using civilian casualties to try and discredit israeli attempts to halt violent acts.
Why not just have a DMZ? patrolled by UN forces or NATO forces which counter any rocket strikes or military attack by either side? Still works for north Korea and those guys have Nukes.
They have UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. It didn't stop Hezzbullah. Indeed H liked putting batteries near UN checkpoints so that Israeli planes and artillery wouldn't target them.
Frazzled wrote: They have UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. It didn't stop Hezzbullah. Indeed H liked putting batteries near UN checkpoints so that Israeli planes and artillery wouldn't target them.
Right. When people say "UN peacekeepers" in the context of any serious discussion, what they mean is "US military personnel who have gotten permission slips from the UN."
Frazzled wrote: They have UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. It didn't stop Hezzbullah. Indeed H liked putting batteries near UN checkpoints so that Israeli planes and artillery wouldn't target them.
Right. When people say "UN peacekeepers" in the context of any serious discussion, what they mean is "US military personnel who have gotten permission slips from the UN."
A majority of UN peacekeepers are not US. A couple years ago they were either Bangelideshi or Pakistani can't remember which.
whembly wrote: Because Mubarak doesn't wish to destroy Israel.
Muslin Brotherhood on the other hand were quite vocal in opposition to Israel.
For about the fortieth time in this thread.... political theatre and political reality are different things. For all the noise from the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi has maintained the quarantine on the Egyptian, just like Mubarak did. Because just like Mubarak, Morsi needs those American dollars to keep his government functioning.
Seb... I think the disagreement here is that it's going to be different.
And we need to stop giving them money. They can take care of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Do you really not see the difference between Mubarek and Morsi when it comes to Israel?
At this point, no. What has he done that's any different?
Wow...
The difference is that a Dictator (Mubarek) needed American influence ($$$ among others).
Morsi... I think he'd be happy to have nothing to do with the Americans... even at the cost of the American aid.
Frazzled wrote: They have UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. It didn't stop Hezzbullah. Indeed H liked putting batteries near UN checkpoints so that Israeli planes and artillery wouldn't target them.
Right. When people say "UN peacekeepers" in the context of any serious discussion, what they mean is "US military personnel who have gotten permission slips from the UN."
Or more often now Pakistan military personnel, paid for by the US from money borrowed from China from selling goods to the US.
whembly wrote: Because Mubarak doesn't wish to destroy Israel.
Muslin Brotherhood on the other hand were quite vocal in opposition to Israel.
For about the fortieth time in this thread.... political theatre and political reality are different things. For all the noise from the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi has maintained the quarantine on the Egyptian, just like Mubarak did. Because just like Mubarak, Morsi needs those American dollars to keep his government functioning.
Seb... I think the disagreement here is that it's going to be different.
And we need to stop giving them money. They can take care of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Do you really not see the difference between Mubarek and Morsi when it comes to Israel?
At this point, no. What has he done that's any different?
Wow...
The difference is that a Dictator (Mubarek) needed American influence ($$$ among others).
Morsi... I think he'd be happy to have nothing to do with the Americans... even at the cost of the American aid.
Seeing that Morsi effectively STAGED A COUP OVER THE WEEKEND, that may occur faster than anyone realized.
Frazzled wrote: Seeing that Morsi effectively STAGED A COUP OVER THE WEEKEND, that may occur faster than anyone realized.
Why is this not getting press?
A: Because it is getting press? B: Because the protests that the opposition are currently staging already occured in Egypt last year, so seem kind of old hat to the general worldwide population? C: Because of the rampant liberal bias in the media? D: Because until he actually uses the powers he has granted himself to actually pass a law, they don't seem to matter too much to most people?
(One of these answers was me being sarcastic, see if you can guess which. )
Seaward wrote: Right. When people say "UN peacekeepers" in the context of any serious discussion, what they mean is "US military personnel who have gotten permission slips from the UN."
The following nations have been involved in UN the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon; Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Croatia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Finland, France, FYR of Macedonia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Turkey.
The following nations were mentioned by Seaward but have never deployed in troops to Lebanon as part of a UN peacekeeping operation; The United States of America.
Of course, US troops were deployed to Lebanon in the 50s and later in the 80s, but these were multinational peacekeeping operations, not UN peacekeeping. More to the point, the point when Seaward claimed US troops were there, they weren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And we need to stop giving them money. They can take care of themselves.
You'd be facing another collapse of government in Egypt, and who knows who would take control next time. Well, actually we do know... it'd be a more extreme government.
I agree that Egypt needs to be weaned off of US money. But the best way to do that would be to transform the nature of the payments currently given, less support for government bodies (especially the military) and instead money for economic expansion - target infrastructure especially. Do that for ten years and maybe you'd be in a place where Egypt could maintain a stable, moderate government without US dollars.
Wow...
The difference is that a Dictator (Mubarek) needed American influence ($$$ among others).
Morsi... I think he'd be happy to have nothing to do with the Americans... even at the cost of the American aid.
But you can't just say 'I think', when the evidence we have is that Morsi is willing to do what it takes to keep the dollars coming in.
Frazzled wrote: Actually we don't have that evidence. We do have evidence he popped a coup. How the money flows after that...we shall see.
We have the evidence that he has continued to toe the line and maintain the quarantine. We know that he didn't threaten the US position when he mediated the ceasefire. And we know that without US dollars his government is not viable.
Doesn't mean his declaration of basically universal power is a good thing - in fact its a terrible thing for the Egyptian people. But in terms of Israel it doesn't look like it means much at all at this point.
Frazzled wrote: Actually we don't have that evidence. We do have evidence he popped a coup. How the money flows after that...we shall see.
We have the evidence that he has continued to toe the line and maintain the quarantine. We know that he didn't threaten the US position when he mediated the ceasefire. And we know that without US dollars his government is not viable.
Doesn't mean his declaration of basically universal power is a good thing - in fact its a terrible thing for the Egyptian people. But in terms of Israel it doesn't look like it means much at all at this point.
We don't know that he maintained the quarantine at all. Those 1,500 rockets didn't magically appear.
sebster wrote: The following nations have been involved in UN the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon;
Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Croatia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Finland, France, FYR of Macedonia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Turkey.
The following nations were mentioned by Seaward but have never deployed in troops to Lebanon as part of a UN peacekeeping operation;
The United States of America.
Of course, US troops were deployed to Lebanon in the 50s and later in the 80s, but these were multinational peacekeeping operations, not UN peacekeeping. More to the point, the point when Seaward claimed US troops were there, they weren't.
I don't recall claiming that US troops were in Lebanon as UN peacekeepers. I also don't recall claiming that Lebanon was the only UN peacekeeping mission on the books.
I do recall claiming that when the UN actually wants peacekeepers to do something, it requests peacekeepers from the US.
Perhaps you were responding to another post and got confused?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Actually we don't have that evidence. We do have evidence he popped a coup. How the money flows after that...we shall see.
Frankly in the words of the immortal bard; GETOUTGETOUTGETOUT! Leave the Mideast to its own devices.
The money will flow. I'm of the opinion we cut a deal with Morsi: keep Hamas toeing the line, and we won't interfere with the power grab. Hamas' choke chain needed to be yanked more than we needed to keep Egyptian democracy alive. Sad but true.
Frazzled wrote: We don't know that he maintained the quarantine at all. Those 1,500 rockets didn't magically appear.
Did he sneak from post to post, telling each squad of soldiers to let through rockets, and make them promise not to tell anyone? I mean seriously, how do you think all of this works?
Small observation as someone who has dual citizenship and has lived in Israel. you do realise that Israel is retaliatory, it's not "aw hell lads, let's rain missiles from apache's on those rat bastards!" And this coupled with hamas affinity for hiding out with civilians as shields and duping international humanitarian workers to come over to work as human shields is just.. yeah.
From my experience there's more segregation between ashkenazim and mezrahim than there is between the jewish and persian/arab population. (and Sweden has way more racism sneaking about than i've ever experienced in Israel)
and my view on this is skewed from having narrowly avoided getting blown to bits on numerous occasions in tel aviv.
Seaward wrote: I don't recall claiming that US troops were in Lebanon as UN peacekeepers. I also don't recall claiming that Lebanon was the only UN peacekeeping mission on the books.
I do recall claiming that when the UN actually wants peacekeepers to do something, it requests peacekeepers from the US.
Oh, okay then. So your argument is stupid for different reasons. Whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: According to google the US gives $2bn in aid a year to Egypt, while Egypt has a GDP of $533bn. I wouldn't say the Egyptians are relying on US aid.
You would be 109% wrong. Government revenue is just 46 billion. Dropping that 2 billion is money the country can't just ignore.
The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. "Believing Resistance" later known as Hezbollah, claimed responsibility for the bombing.[1]
Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[2][dead link] In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the building was killed in the first blast.[3] The explosives used were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT.
In the attack on the French barracks, the eight-story 'Drakkar' building, two minutes after the attack, 58 paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War.[4] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building were also killed.[5]
The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
I remember that. Was quite a visual shock for everyone who watched the news. Espacially the black male being passed down from the top the rubble in a stretcher on his stomach while he's leaning up looking around at the devastation in just his boxers
Testify wrote: According to google the US gives $2bn in aid a year to Egypt, while Egypt has a GDP of $533bn. I wouldn't say the Egyptians are relying on US aid.
You would be 109% wrong. Government revenue is just 46 billion. Dropping that 2 billion is money the country can't just ignore.
True, but the problem here is that the Muslim Brotherhood are a little bit more fanatical.
True, but the problem here is that the Muslim Brotherhood are a little bit more fanatical.
I'd say cut the aid. I'm sure they wouldn't care.
But just like Hamas and any other group you can't just read the extremist quotes and think that's that, they're all nutters. You have to look at what they actually do.
And here, with Egypt, all we've seen so far is a continuance of the same policies. Cutting the money now makes no sense.
)
