Israil oversteps the mark

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Eli

I assume that you're reffering to me, since your subsequent factual errors and reading mistakes are apparent references to what you construed my post to be.

where on earth did you get the idea that the french resistance fought to advance the border of France? The french resistance fought to end the occupation of germany... That's quite a bit of difference.

Germany had annexed parts of France, with the agreement of the French Vichy government. The French resistance was fighting to get back all of it. Admittadly, the Germans later occupied the whole thing, but we don't consider those who resisted Vichy to be terrorists or criminals.

And no one in their right mind praises the french resistance for the germans they killed just because they were germans...

Did I say that? No, I said Nazis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you do acknowledge a difference between Nazis and Germans. Do you think no one in their right mind praises the French resistance for killing Nazis? Would it have been wrong to kill Nazis had they restricted their murder of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled to the borders of Germany? And come to think of it, wasn't Nazi Germany's demand for the Polish corridor just a fight against the unfair Polish occupation of what had been German soil for quite some time?

They praise them because they risked their lives so that France would be free again.

If that was the whole issue, then everyone would praise the fighters of the Paris Commune in 1871 just as much. They would also praise the Serbs in Kosovo, who were fighting to protect their Kosovo province from Albanian aggression in the hostilities there a few years ago. But they don't. On the other hand, most people do praise Germans who resisted Nazism, even though they were not necessarily fighting to end Germany's occupation of foriegn countries.

Also, history DOES remember the germans as the villains of WW1... Maybe because they lost, but they did declare war on France and England.

England declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality, not the other way round. I don't know what history books you read, but I've rarely seen much other than allied propaganda pretend that Germany was evil for continuing its occupation of Alsace-Lorraine.

I don't get the zoning part... please explain?

If you hated Irish protestants as much as you hate Israelis, you'd be arguing that Ireland was unnaturally divided to accomodate a state for the Protestant minority.

[CyberGnu]

Spraybear:

You say they [the suicide bombings] aren't effective. I say that they are wrong because they target
civilians for no other purpose than that they are Jews.

And you are wrong. Let's try a hypothetical mind-exercise.

Let's say that all the jews in Israel switch places with all the Norwegians in Norway. Do you think the arabs would try to plant bombs in Norway (so they could kill jews), or would they try to kill the (now occupying) norwegians?

Of course, Norwegians being fine and upstanding people, they would most likely grant the palestinians the land and security they deserve, and the conflict would be over. But that is a different question.

The point is that the arabs aren't targeting Israeli civilians because of the genetic heritage they carry. They are targeting them as representatives of an occupying power. There is an immense difference.

It has been a steadfast policy of the Israeli and jewish PR machine to label anyone who opposes Israeli practices an anti-semite or nazi. I sincerely hope that you don't intend to do the same, since if anything in this thread is insulting, it is that implication...


As long as Israel occupies palestine, the murders you talk of ARE cries for freedom... How could they be otherwise? In a throwback to Elis misconception, do you belive the french resistance killed germans because they hated everything german, or because they tried to end the occupation? that the second spawned the first I won't argue with, but not the other way around... And as france/germany have shown quite well after WW2 is that a nation where the people would go to great lengths in killing an occupying neighbour can get along very well when the occupation is over.


I'm not sure what part of my post was insulting, but I would like to know what nation you consider most unbiased. Maybe Iceland... Australia? New Zealand? Canada? all very much like the EU... and so any difference between them would be minor, especially compared to countries like Egypt, US, China, etc.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Every other war was started by Israel, except the 1948 war, was was started by both sides equally.

I'd say that the Six Day War was started by both sides equally as well. Whether or not Egypt was seriously considering war, reoccupying the Sinai and blockading Eliat were moves that any nation would consider a prelude to war. I can't blame Israel for launching their strike; how were they supposed to know what Nasser was thinking?

As for the invasion of the West Bank, why did Jordan enter the war?

Both sides were bad guys, and the Palesintinians were abused by everyone.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one.

[S. Kroeze]

So you think that this is just a Euro-Jewish anti-Islamic conspiracy, and that he Arab states play no role in the conflict?

When you would at least read and try to understand my post, you would conclude that allowing the foundation of the state of Israel and the resulting conflict is the result of appalling indifference of the US, USSR and Europe for the well-being of the Jewish people. It was both anti-Muslim AND anti-Jewish.

Having failed to protect the Jews, they gave the Jews a small piece of desert far away to die for! I am not surprised the Jews jumped at it. The survivors of the Holocaust had every reason to flee Europe and Russia.

I suppose you will not launch the theory that the Arab people were ever consulted in advance, before 1940.
They had some disagreeable recollections from the Crusades!
This was another attempt to conquer the 'Holy' places.

a substantial part of former Palestine and also a part of Jerusalem.

The most important word here is SUBSTANTIAL!
Im my view 50% corresponds more with this concept than 20%. The original UN plan (1947) was quite fair. It is a pity the Jews didn't scratch their head when the Arabs were unwilling to accept it. But why should they have accepted it?
They were not in any way responsible for the Holocaust!
This rejection clearly reflected their lack of enthusiasm for a Jewish state in that part of the world. But Europe, US and USSR couldn't care less! The more Jews and Muslims fight one another the less threat they can pose to Christianity.

Barak offered even less than 20%. Yet he thinks he was extremely generous
Not that it still made any difference! I think the moment Rabin was killed all prospects for peace were over.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


So any lands you acquire by force you get to keep? Gee, Hitler would be proud of that statement.

Who initiated the use of force?

And I wish people who talked about this **** would look at topographic maps of the region and air defense nets and fundamental issues of strategic defense, and tell me how Israel is to cede high ground in the West Bank and Golan to a hostile state which is allied with other hostile states which have initiated three major wars against Israel in 54 years?

[Natan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
When you would at least read and try to understand my post, you would conclude that allowing the foundation of the state of Israel and the resulting conflict is the result of appalling indifference of the US, USSR and Europe for the well-being of the Jewish people. It was both anti-Muslim AND anti-Jewish.

Having failed to protect the Jews, they gave the Jews a small piece of desert far away to die for! I am not surprised the Jews jumped at it. The survivors of the Holocaust had every reason to flee Europe and Russia.

Attempts to blame the conflict on outside bystanders are silly. The two sides are not fighting against their will as a result of the doings of outsiders. Jews started Zionism, and Arabs started opposition to it; Europeans may have mananged to increase the misery of Jews and Arabs, but they did not create the conflict in any conscious way. European anti-Semitism could be blamed, but that was hardly part of a plan to plant European Jews in the Arab world to guard Christian holy sites.

I suppose you will not launch the theory that the Arab people were ever consulted in advance, before 1940.
They had some disagreeable recollections from the Crusades!
This was another attempt to conquer the 'Holy' places.

You seem to overrate the level of planned European involvement in this.

a substantial part of former Palestine and also a part of Jerusalem.

The most important word here is SUBSTANTIAL!
Im my view 50% corresponds more with this concept than 20%. The original UN plan (1947) was quite fair. It is a pity the Jews didn't scratch their head when the Arabs were unwilling to accept it. But why should they have accepted it?

I could just as well (and probably should) point out that the Arabs actually got most of the Palestine mandate when they got trans-jordan. I would also say that borders must be drawn on the basis of present facts; we should no more return Jaffa to the Palestinians than we'd return Danzig to Germany.

They were not in any way responsible for the Holocaust!

We could bring up the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Rashid Ali coup in which Arab leaders sided with the Nazis, but the whole line of argument isn't worthwhile. It's not the Irish catholics fault that scots moved into Ireland, but that doesn't mean the Protestants in the north shouldn't be allowed to keep the north a part of the UK.

This rejection clearly reflected their lack of enthusiasm for a Jewish state in that part of the world. But Europe, US and USSR couldn't care less! The more Jews and Muslims fight one another the less threat they can pose to Christianity.

Yes, the USSR was thinking a lot about how to preserve Christian hegemony. But really, what did you expect to have happen? Did you think that maybe the 600,000 Jews in Israel and the half a million or so Holocaust survivors would just go back to Stalin's Russia?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Natan
If you hated Irish protestants as much as you hate Israelis, you'd be arguing that Ireland was unnaturally divided to accomodate a state for the Protestant minority.

It was, the only purpose was to appease a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots in the north.

Mad props to MtG, sadly, I doubt anybody will listen. AH is much hiding his head in his high horse's ass.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But he didn't really compare it to the Holocaust... he simply said, didn't they learn anything from WW2 and how wrong it is to persecute other races.

A perfectly valid statement.

7

[CyberGnu]

Eli, I'm terribly sorry that I confused you with NAtan. My sinserest apologies

Natan, also sorry.

Germany had annexed parts of France, with the agreement of the French Vichy government. The French
resistance was fighting to get back all of it. Admittadly, the Germans later occupied the whole thing,
but we don't consider those who resisted Vichy to be terrorists or criminals.

Vichy France was a german puppet regime.

Apparently you haven't studied WW2 to any great length. In 1939, Germany after England and France declared war on Germany because of Germanys invasion of Poland, Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London. the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S.. Prior to the invasion of Normandie, the french resistance fought to make the german ocupation more costly. They knew perfectly well that they could not alone throw off the german yoke, but they knew that every bit they did made it easier for the Allied powers when the D-day finally came. After D-day, the french resistance helped by sabotaging german communications and supply line, by guiding allied soliders and other irregular duties.

The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers.


You never answered my question... where did you get this notion? Since I know you must have gone to an american school, I'm assuming you didn't learn it their... Was the history education in your school so bad that you had to try to get information on your own, and read a israeli textbook? Or was it your parents who told you this? Again, I'm genuinly curious...


Replace every single 'german' in my previous post with 'nazi' and you'll get the same result. People can be killed because the actions they perform, not because of the political views they have.

If germany hadn't invaded France, France would have had no justification killing a single german, nazi or otherwise.

If the germans would have started the holocaust without invading other countries, then France would have reason to invade Germany, I believe, and put the german goverment on trial for crimes against humanity.... Much like Sharon should be today.

If that was the whole issue, then everyone would praise the fighters of the Paris Commune in 1871 just
as much.They would also praise the Serbs in Kosovo, who were fighting to protect their Kosovo
province from Albanian aggression in the hostilities there a few years ago.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. please elaborate. Both examples.

On the other
hand, most people do praise Germans who resisted Nazism, even though they were not necessarily
fighting to end Germany's occupation of foriegn countries.

I'm not entierly sure what the point of that statement is, since to the best of my knowledge there aren't a single case of a german who opposed the holocaust but approved of germanys occupation of neighbouring countries... Maybe there were some, but I don't know of them. If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise... (in which category there are actually a few people.... a notorious swedish author, amongst others... He has taken some serious **** about that, and justifiably so.)

England declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality, not the other way round. I don't
know what history books you read, but I've rarely seen much other than allied propaganda pretend that
Germany was evil for continuing its occupation of Alsace-Lorraine.

You are mincing words. Sure, England declared war on germany, but as a direct result of germany invading englands ally Belgium. What difference does that make, other than make it seem like you are rebutting my point without actually saying anything?

I have never in my life seen any propaganda claiming that germany was 'evil' for occupying alsace-lorraine... Plenty of people, however, claims that germany was the villain of WW1 because they invaded their neighbours. You really have a problem with that whole 'invasion' and 'aggression' thing...

If you hated Irish protestants as much as you hate Israelis, you'd be arguing that Ireland was unnaturally
divided to accomodate a state for the Protestant minority.

As I said before, I don't hate Israelis. I just belive in right and wrong, and that aggression is wrong.

I actually don't know much about the zoning of Ireland. I do know that neither Ireland nor Norther Ireland want a unified Irish country, while England would be more than happy to get rid of that perpetual money-sink that is NI...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


So any lands you acquire by force you get to keep? Gee, Hitler would be proud of that statement.

Hey smart guy, they have a name for legitimate stealing of land and territory --- it's called warfare.

United States has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare.

Australia and New Zealand has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare with the natives.

Russia has kept land and territory she acquired from warfare.

and . . . . . . . so forth

Israel is merely one of the many, many nations that seeks to keep land that she seized during warfare. Nothing new.

[CyberGnu]

Natan:

I would also say that borders must be drawn on the basis of present facts

again, Hitler would be proud.

BTW, does this mean that if the arabs started a war with Israel and actually won, you would support expelling all the jews? If not, how long must the arab armies occupy israel before it is legitimate? One year? Five years? Fifty years?

Natan and MrFun, one of the greatest development of the 20'th century was the realisation that changing borders as a result of warfare is a bad practice, only spawning more enmity and war. Most of the world (the ones who are members of the UN) have ratified that aggression is not a legitimate way to obtain land. Israel is violating this principle, but starting from sympathy from the holocaust, it has managed to put enough spin on it to be accepted in the U.S.. Nevertheless, two wrongs does not make one right, and ISraels war on aggression should not be allowed to gain Israel land...

[CyberGnu]

The Arabs rejected the division and started an ethnic cleansing war against Jews and Israel.

No, actually they started a hugging war against Israel. That is what they intended to do if they won. I know I don't have anything to back up this statement with, but then again, neither have you. Could there have been ehtnic cleaning if the arbas won? Possibly. Could there have been hugging? Possibly. Is one more likely than the other? sure. Does it matter? No.

Please refer to the war like what it was: A war to get back what the U.N. gave away. No ehtnic cleansing involved.

[S. Kroeze]

Europeans may have mananged to increase the misery of Jews and Arabs, but they did not create the conflict in any conscious way.

I agree they did not cause the conflict. Yet they allowed it to arise. What about the Balfour declaration(1917)?
The British should never have created their protectorate in Palestine.

And allowing -and supporting- the foundation of Israel was a conscious act, partly the result of feelings of guilt.

You seem to overrate the level of planned European involvement in this.

And it is my impression your knowledge of the European policy versus the 'Holy Land' is lacking.
Apart from seven crusades, all great European powers have in all centuries tried to have influence in Palestine and to protect Christians in the Near East, especially when the Turks were weak. After ~1650 Turkish power was gradually declining. You should read some treaties with the Porte!

It was inevitable that some days Europeans would try to control the 'Holy' places again. Especially because the West became so powerful and the Muslim world so backward! History is far stronger than the individual will of a human being. Christianity is still the dominant religion of Europe, even in Russia!
Most Jews who founded Israel came from Europe. Without constant support -by Europe and US- Israel would not exist!

[CyberGnu]

MTG:

And I wish people who talked about this **** would look at topographic maps of the region and air defense nets and fundamental issues of strategic defense, and tell me how Israel is to cede high ground in the West Bank and Golan to a hostile state which is allied with other hostile states which have initiated three major wars against Israel in 54 years?

That still doesn't give Israel the right to steal land. It could be argued, however, that Israel should be able to TRADE land, on a quality basis.

It disturbs me every time someone makes the argument that the 1948 borders were discontunuous, as if that somehow made Israeli occupation any more justified... They could have given away all areas south of Jerusalem, or traded them for areas such that they had one long border... But the Israeli greed only saw acquisation of new land as an option... Putting them in such illustrionous company as Stalin for example.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
BTW, does this mean that if the arabs started a war with Israel and actually won, you would support expelling all the jews?

If the Arabs defeat Israel, the Jews would be lucky to just be expelled as opposed to being killed. Arab society doesn't have the same respect for human rights that many in the West take for granted.

one of the greatest development of the 20'th century was the realisation that changing borders as a result of warfare is a bad practice, only spawning more enmity and war.

I have to disagree with you on this. Changing borders is necessary sometimes, in order to achieve a strategic balance between opposing countries. To deny countries the right to acquire defensible borders is stupid, IMO.