Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The only effective and moral self defense is the self defense that stops the aggressor. If it takes eliminating every last vestige of your opponent then so be it. If your opponent starts it, you finish it, and finish it so strongly they never have the capacity to start it again.

Go and read the extensive history leading up to the formation of Israel, I suggest you start in the mid 1870s, you'll see what an utter fabrication that is. Those Palestinians were never removed from their homes, they left before the war in 48 in fear of Jewish reprisals and what would happen to them if they were there when the Arabs rolled through. The Arabs who stayed in Israel for the war and who did not take part in the hostilities were allowed to stay and given citizenship. All Jewish land prior to that had been legally obtained for cash. True they expropriated a good deal of property after the war in 48 but that's totally fair. There wasn't anyone living there, and the inhabitants had sided with the enemies of Israel. It's no different then expropriating the property of enemy combatants that is held in your country.

First of all, don't patronize me. I'm pretty damn well read by now on the formation of the Jewish state.The British conquered Palestine at the turn of the century and was awarded the the mandate of Palestine by the league of nations in 1922. At this time Arabs made up 90% of the population of the future sites that would be Palestinian. At the end of WW2 the jewish population in palestine was still only 33% of the total. After the British fled the mandate due to jewish and arab uprisings the U.N. general assembly drafted the plan to create the nation of Israel. The two year civil war that ended with the drafting (and refusal by the Israeli state) of that plan forced the majority of ethnic Arabs from their homes. This is nothing short of a war of conquest by the formative Jewish state. It can be considered nothing short of that because it was planned, prosecuted, and resulted in exactly that. In 1948 the Arab nations attacked the newly formed state of Israel and lost, badly.

An ideology that is backed up by a lot of ignorance of the facts, history, and almost no common sense. Objective morality is different, but in that case it would still side with Israel.

Says the guy totally unaware of the civil war of mandatory palestine and the refugee crisis of 1947-48. You really think everyone just up and left because they thought the arab countries were about to attack? No one with a clear understanding of the history of Israel is pro Israel. Anyone pretending to be such has formed their opinion on revisionist history, as is seen here.

That isn't insane, that is a perfectly rational response to a large body of people who wish to do you and your countrymen harm and do not care about the cost to themselves.

Now it's both insane and ignorant. You think the majority of Palestinians are extremist fighters? You think that they don't care about the cost to themselves and their families? Are you really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that they should just accept the blockade of basic requirements for existence, the total denial of basic human rights, and the consistent and accelerating theft of their lands and economic base without trying to do something about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The only effective and moral self defense is the self defense that stops the aggressor. If it takes eliminating every last vestige of your opponent then so be it. If your opponent starts it, you finish it, and finish it so strongly they never have the capacity to start it again.

Thank you Osama.

 Mannahnin wrote:
How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.

They left Gaza and as they were leaving Hamas started firing rockets. What if you form two states (Palestine and Israel) and rockets continue to fly from Palestine?

Inversely what if Israel says feth off its all ours and pushes everyone out of the occupied territories (which are really just Jordan and Egypt).

What does Israel do about Hezzbullah which continues to fire rockets into Israel from Lebanon, a completely separate country.

What if Israel retaliates against an attack and Iran says any attack on Palestine will result in a nuclear response?

All things to consider and why its best the US stay the heck out of the region. Too many ways for things to go boom.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Nope, they want it, but they weren't willing to fight for it, and prior to the creation of Israel they had obtained all of the land that was Jewish controlled through legal purchases. Seriously, the Palestinians were all happy to sell their land to the Jews, then the Jews reclaim said land from the worthless parcels that it was before and all of a sudden the Palestinians want it back, and the Arabs are going to back them up. Well they tried three times, and all three times the Jews kicked their asses, so by right of conquest alone they have control of the area that was outside the 67 borders, and by right of both occupation and defence do they hold their land. Neither of which is immoral as they paid for them, originally in cash, and later in blood.

Economic ownership and political ownership are very different things. The 'right' of conquest is meaningless in this day and age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The only effective and moral self defense is the self defense that stops the aggressor.

What if it doesn't, in fact what happens if the act of aggressive self defense all but ensures that there will be attacks against you in the future?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

True that.

Did it just get really white in here?

Says the guy totally unaware of the civil war of mandatory palestine and the refugee crisis of 1947-48.

Actually I am, that's why I mentioned it.

The two year civil war that ended with the drafting (and refusal by the Israeli state) of that plan forced the majority of ethnic Arabs from their homes.

Half of that is bs, what the heck have you been reading?

No one with a clear understanding of the history of Israel is pro Israel.

This one is obviously wrong, both in literal meaning, (people can know the history and still be cool with pretty much everything) and the intended meaning. I also have a clear understanding of Israels history, and I'm totally cool with it.

Now it's both insane and ignorant. You think the majority of Palestinians are extremist fighters? You think that they don't care about the cost to themselves and their families? Are you really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that they should just accept the blockade of basic requirements for existence, the total denial of basic human rights, and the consistent and accelerating theft of their lands and economic base without trying to do something about it?

An insurgency is only possible with the tacit support of the local population. They are the ones who provide them with arms, funding, recruits, safe houses, and other things. The very fact that the extremists hide in within the population, and the population does nothing to combat them, means that they can be held responsible.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.

They left Gaza and as they were leaving Hamas started firing rockets. What if you form two states (Palestine and Israel) and rockets continue to fly from Palestine?

Inversely what if Israel says feth off its all ours and pushes everyone out of the occupied territories (which are really just Jordan and Egypt).

What does Israel do about Hezzbullah which continues to fire rockets into Israel from Lebanon, a completely separate country.

What if Israel retaliates against an attack and Iran says any attack on Palestine will result in a nuclear response?

All things to consider and why its best the US stay the heck out of the region. Too many ways for things to go boom.

The two state solution has no realistic application, the Israelis don't want it and there are too many entrenched and fanatical militants in Palestine (and in Palestine but from other nations) for it to be a viable idea. The ultra-Orthodox jews also wouldn't stand for the cessation of settlement construction. The only real solutions are single state, either enforced by the jewish state effectively removing palestinians from palestine or via massive foreign intervention from the U.N. or from a country acting unilateraly (the only countries capable of doing this won't).

The only realistic way to solve the crisis through the two state solution is for world opinion of Israel to drop to the point where it's forced to play ball and make realistic concessions at the negotiating table. The ceasefire would then have to be arbitrated by a U.N. backed military force with agreement from the arab league. Given how good the Israeli propaganda machine is in the U.S. and how weak willed EU foreign policy is (and how capricious and self serving Chinese and Russian foreign policy is) I really don't think there's any hope at all. 100 years from now there just won't be a palestine and Israel will be bigger.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Seriously, the Palestinians were all happy to sell their land to the Jews, then the Jews reclaim said land from the worthless parcels that it was before and all of a sudden the Palestinians want it back, and the Arabs are going to back them up.

No, the people that held the deeds to the land were happy to sell it to the Jews. They were generally Arabs, but wouldn't be counted as Palestinians.

 Ratbarf wrote:

That isn't insane, that is a perfectly rational response to a large body of people who wish to do you and your countrymen harm and do not care about the cost to themselves.

True, that isn't insane. What is insane is maintaining a particular relationship with such a country for moral or traditional reasons. And further being susceptible to allegations of antisemitism if you are not so disposed.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Nope, in fact I perfectly agree with it. Really, I wish they would just be allowed to go at it and then we would be done with this silly argument.

Absent genocide that is false.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Neither does the vast majority of the world, your own state included. The only states that do either Scandinavian or Swiss.

I like how you ignored the manipulation of US foreign policy, which is admittedly our fault.

Actually I am, that's why I mentioned it.

Oh, so this is a read between the lines kind of thing, where I'm supposed to assume you said something despite you saying something else. Noted.

Half of that is bs, what the heck have you been reading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

An insurgency is only possible with the tacit support of the local population. They are the ones who provide them with arms, funding, recruits, safe houses, and other things. The very fact that the extremists hide in within the population, and the population does nothing to combat them, means that they can be held responsible.

Which implies a state of war. Which implies that Israel is subject to war crime laws. In which case Israel has a lot of war crimes trials to catch up on.

Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.

Why does it have to be a Jewish state? There will never be a lasting peaceful settlement unless both sides make significant compromises and any future integrated state should be resolutely secular.

Israel is one of the main reasons why the Palestinians lack the rescources to suceed.

If only those Israelis weren't mucking things up everything would be paradise like in 1940. You're right, the only lasting final solution here is that they be relocated.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right, the only lasting final solution here is that they be relocated.

That's pretty much what happened...

The 'right' of conquest is meaningless in this day and age.

Tell that to the Palestinians.

True, that isn't insane. What is insane is maintaining a particular relationship with such a country for moral or traditional reasons. And further being susceptible to allegations of antisemitism if you are not so disposed.

Considering they're the only nation involved in the conflict who doesn't want to see America drown in blood I would also have to say that it's pretty sane.

No, the people that held the deeds to the land were happy to sell it to the Jews. They were generally Arabs, but wouldn't be counted as Palestinians.

Then neither would Palestinians, they aren't an ethnicity, they're just the decendants of the inhabitants of an Ottoman Province.

What if it doesn't, in fact what happens if the act of aggressive self defense all but ensures that there will be attacks against you in the future?

Then by definition it wasn't a moral or effective defence.

 Ahtman wrote:
Saying that Israel must continually bomb, relocate, and bully the Palestinians or they will cease to exist strikes me as one of the big lies, and a way to perpetuate an almost eternal state of conflict.

They could just push all the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and claim them as part of Israel. Its time honored tradition. If its good enough for the Romans, Brits, the Aztecs, and the USA its good enough for israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:


What if it doesn't, in fact what happens if the act of aggressive self defense all but ensures that there will be attacks against you in the future?

Not if you kill everyone who could attack you. Again, historically thats time honored tradition. Kill the men, enslave the women and children. Raze the cities and salt the earth. Its Old School ROman style.

I don't have a dog in this hunt as an American, but there are definitely time honored methods of solving the conflict one way or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right, the only lasting final solution here is that they be relocated.

That's pretty much what happened...

Only if Israel loses.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Considering they're the only nation involved in the conflict who doesn't want to see America drown in blood I would also have to say that it's pretty sane.

No, not really. Jordan is quite fond of the US, as is Saudi Arabia. Egypt is up in the air now, but was an ally.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Then neither would Palestinians, they aren't an ethnicity, they're just the decendants of the inhabitants of an Ottoman Province.

Ah, the Dennis Miller argument, what fun.

They're an ethnicity because they are treated as distinct by each other and all people who would alternatively regard them as members of their own ethnicity. The only people that don't regard "Palestinian" as an ethnicity are Westerners and Israelis; and in both cases its about rhetoric.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Then by definition it wasn't a moral or effective defence.

You have a very broad understanding of "moral" and "effective", and seem quite naive. One can do a moral thing that is not effective, and an effective thing that is not moral. One can also do a thing that is effective in being moral while not actually being effective in any other sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Only if Israel loses.

Both the Jews and the Palestinians were relocated.

Zionism is predicated on relocating Jews.

Half of that is bs, what the heck have you been reading?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

Ah, that would explain it. Wikipedia is really terrible when it comes to contentious political arguments.

Which implies a state of war. Which implies that Israel is subject to war crime laws. In which case Israel has a lot of war crimes trials to catch up on.

Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You have a very broad understanding of "moral" and "effective", and seem quite naive. One can do a moral thing that is not effective, and an effective thing that is not moral. One can also do a thing that is effective in being moral while not actually being effective in any other sense.

Frazzled stated the terms in which a defencsive war is just and moral, you asked what is it when those terms are not met, ergo, it can't be a just and moral war if the terms aren't met. I wasn't refering to this case exactly, I was showing you a hole in your logic.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.

Not according to the Geneva Conventions, but thankfully words are a bit more fluid.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Frazzled stated the terms in which a defencsive war is just and moral, you asked what is it when those terms are not met, ergo, it can't be a just and moral war if the terms aren't met. I wasn't refering to this case exactly, I was showing you a hole in your logic.

I was questioning his premises. By his assumptions a very effective and moral form of self-defense would be murder or genocide.

Well yeah, it's kind of hard for the enemy to hit back if they all happen to be dead.

Ah, that would explain it. Wikipedia is really terrible when it comes to contentious political arguments.

So is sputtering unsourced arguments that contradict each other. I'll take the wikipedia.

Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.

A policing action that involves the murder of thousands (it's not justifiable outside of the context of war!) In which case it's an act of war.

Then how come the Palestinian government has not declared war on them?

 Ratbarf wrote:
Then how come the Palestinian government has not declared war on them?

Because Israel has not recognized Hamas as a form of government and because Israel would kill another hundred children in a third gaza war. It's not really worth it. The international community wouldn't bring them up on warcrime anyway, the U.S. would veto any attempt.

Then I guess it isn't a war huh?

 Ratbarf wrote:
Then I guess it isn't a war huh?

Except when Israel declares it is, which they do every few years. There's still plenty to call them on, but cowards refuse to do so.

I don't think it has anything to do with cowardice, and more to do with the fact that they deserve praise.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with cowardice, and more to do with the fact that they deserve praise.

Yes, praise for the slaughter of civilians, the theft of land, and the cowardice to pretend that they're defending themselves.

I think we're done.