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.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Well at least they seem to be learning a bit of restraint...

The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...

Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.

Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.

Thought that may be useful to know.

Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?

Neither does it excuse the killings of innocent children by the Israelis, or the colonisation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

To give you some statistics:
Since 1987, nearly 8000 Palestinians have died, 1620 of them under 18.
Since 1987, 1503 Israelis have died, 142 of them under 18.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Well at least they seem to be learning a bit of restraint...

The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...

Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.

Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.

Thought that may be useful to know.

Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?

The onus is generally on the stronger part to show restraint, because otherwise it's awfully close to bullying. The idiots who plan and perform suicide attacks aren't representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, whereas the IDF is effectively the state of Israel performing the actions. It obviously doesn't mean that Hizbollah or Hamas are the best guys ever, but as has been pointed out the casualty rate is staggeringly different.

War tends to do that. No sane country would show restraint with the ridiculous number of rocket barrages and suicide bombers coming out of Palestine.

Well, it's obviously not working very well, as the only way they manage to stop said attacks is to place the entire population behind a blockade that doesn't even let chocolate through, and even then it's not working very well.

Grey Templar wrote:Israel needs to be proactive in defending themselves. They can't wait for their enemies to directly attack them, otherwise they would be destroyed.

They would gladly live in peace, but none of their neighbors will let them. Thus have been given no choice but to be very aggressive in destroying potential threats to their security.

Wow. Just... wow. I'm generally not in Israel's side when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution and I think that's the only possible ending that doesn't involve genocide; but I do recogize that it's a long, murky and grey area that the situation operates in. But I've rarely seen naivete such as yours.

Exactly what sources are you basing your statement on?

Anyway, when was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel instead of the other way around?

The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.

simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution

I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.

Yeah I think Israel kinda had a good reason for that time...

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.

simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution

I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.

Launch a genocide?

Are you high or something?

The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!

Mr Hyena wrote:The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.

simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution

I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.

I didn't say a non-biased two-state solution. It'd be nice, but I'd also like a giant mech suit, and while not absolutely impossible, is highly unlikely. But even an imbalanced two-state solution would be better than what Israel currently has set up.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.

A one-state solution is going to be even worse for Israel in the long run. Either they're forced to commit genocide, or eventually Israel stops being a Jewish country and becomes an Muslim-majority country.

A fate which I'm fairly certain they fear far more than they do the two-state solution.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.

simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution

I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.

I didn't say a non-biased two-state solution. It'd be nice, but I'd also like a giant mech suit, and while not absolutely impossible, is highly unlikely. But even an imbalanced two-state solution would be better than what Israel currently has set up.

imbalanced one would end up leading towards genocide again, unless the US steps up their support to Israel.

Launch a genocide?

Are you high or something?

The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!

So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

... or if they step up their support for Palestine to force Israel to stop committing genocide, but that's unlikely to happen as a two-state solution to begin with.

I could see that happening though, the support that is, if they could keep the rocket attacks from happening.

Hey guys what is going on in here?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Launch a genocide?

Are you high or something?

The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!

So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I could see that happening though, the support that is, if they could keep the rocket attacks from happening.

Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage.

It really needs a mutual step-down of hostilities. The populations are probably in favor of it, but the politicians aren't because of the way their two political systems are set up (both Israel's and Palestine's politics give advantages to extremists).

The majority of the people of Israel are in favour of a two state solution. They just need to get some people into office who do support a solution like that.

And they need to figure out a way to decrease the power of the religious extremists, who are given disproportionate power and representation under Israeli law.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Launch a genocide?

Are you high or something?

The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!

So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.

Jihadi's don't know mercy though. Only violence, slaughter and wickedness.

Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage.

Then it wouldn't be mutual then.

And they need to figure out a way to decrease the power of the religious extremists, who are given disproportionate power and representation under Israeli law.

It'll be difficult to do it when its democratically empowered.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.

Agreed.

One thing I don't really understand is how the Israeli government can get away with being racist. They allow all Jews to become citizens, unless you're black.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Launch a genocide?

Are you high or something?

The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!

So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.

Jihadi's don't know mercy though. Only violence, slaughter and wickedness.

Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage.

Then it wouldn't be mutual then.

Oh for feth's sake.

You know, the wars between Israel and the Arabs were fought with conventional arms, by conventional armies. It's not like proto-al-Qaeda groups were like "hey xxx, want a helping hand?"

And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.

'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.

Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.

And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?

'mutual stand-down' would involve both nations taking equal part in it.

You know, the wars between Israel and the Arabs were fought with conventional arms, by conventional armies.

One was an aggressor and one was a defender. Conventional arms doesn't change people's mindsets. Trying to invade, kill and throw out a group of people who were displaced already by a terrible event during WW2, and who needed their own country to ensure their own survival does nothing to show that an aggressor is in the right.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.

'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.

Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.

They really aren't.

I mean, the Palestinian organisations haven't been that active for a while. Meanwhile, Israel sends tanks into the Gaza strip and they kill innocent civilians, while displacing their families by forcing them out of their homes. You should see how badly the Pals have it in their territories.

How is that slightly better?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.

Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.

'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.

Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.

That isn't good enough, and the US and the UK, for all their issues, are still leagues ahead of Israel on this front.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?

'mutual stand-down' would involve both nations taking equal part in it.

Right, let's get the Palestinians to hand over their non-existent tanks, non-existent fighter jets, non-existent nuclear weapons . . . How do you expect them to take equal part, when one side is so vastly superior to the other?

That isn't good enough, and the US and the UK, for all their issues, are still leagues ahead of Israel on this front.

I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would disagree.

Right, let's get the Palestinians to hand over their non-existent tanks, non-existent fighter jets, non-existent nuclear weapons . . . How do you expect them to take equal part, when one side is so vastly superior to the other?

So then its not a mutual stand down is it? Its a one-sided stand down.

Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Agreed.

One thing I don't really understand is how the Israeli government can get away with being racist. They allow all Jews to become citizens, unless you're black.

What?

I'd love to see some supporting evidence for this...

They allow all Jews to permanently reside, but they do not grant automatic citizenship. And I found zero mention about this being blocked if you are "black".

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.

A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.

This threads reminds me of exactly why I stopped attending conferences that related directly to Israel.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.

A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.

But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.

Which leaves the problem: whos going to keep the rogue arab states from interfering? Like Syria, Iran and the other jihadis?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.

A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.

But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.

And once again, you put all the pressure on Palestine to disarm, but don't require Israel do anything.