Israil oversteps the mark

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

correct me when there are still other possibilities:

• Kill ALL Palestinians
• Deport ALL Palestinians to the frontier
• Make a lasting peace with the enemy: giving the Palestinians -the former inhabitants of this country- a substantial part of former Palestine and also a part of Jerusalem.
  Originally the UN plan was to make Jerusalem international territory. Giving less than 20% of all land will not do!

Wasn't a peace plan offered and summarly rejected by the Pals that basically gave what you described?



Does anyone know if the Pals would agree to Jersalem being an international city? From what I remember they still describe it as their capital. I don't know, I'm just wondering.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Wasn't a peace plan offered and summarly rejected by the Pals that basically gave what you described?

You forget that the UN plan was rejected by the Palestinians as well.

[Natan]

S. Kroeze, if Palestinian terrorism can't be defeated, Israel should just pack up and leave. But I don't see why people are so confidant that it can't be; Islamic terrorists have been defeated in various countries all over the world and will continue to be defeated. It's not impossible, it's just hard. It doesn't involve ethnic cleansing or extermination.

When no final solution will be reached in the short turn, Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth sooner of later. Time is running out!

Why?

In my opinion the international community -which includes Europe and the US- has committed a most heinous crime by first allowing the Holocaust without doing anything to thwart it, then allowing the Jews to be slowly tormented, undermined, killed and wasted in some extremely volatile and underdeveloped part of the world -largely desert- acting as a hateful colonial oppressor, far away from Europe and the US.

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

I guess this has been one great pharisaic, Christian conspiracy from the beginning: making Jews the unpaid guardians of 'our' Holy places!

Please, this kind of rubbish is getting old. And the term "pharisaic conspiracy" is scaring me.

The killing of Palestinians -actually far more Palestinians are killed- is no problem at all: the life of an 'Arab' is still even more useless than the life of a Jew!
When the Muslims of Srebrenica were slaughtered -about 7000 men- Dutchbat wisely looked the other way.

It's not about the lives of Jews or Muslims or Arabs, it's about the lives of people with some power or of some worth to those with power. Those who don't fall into one of those two latter categories aren't protected. NATO will intervene in Kosovo to prevent a flood of refugees to Western Europe and to maintain stability in the Balkans (related goals), but couldn't care less about Christians being killed in Sudan, or even Muslims and Christians being killed together by drug lords and smugglers in Sierra Leonne.

That is probably also the reason the US -and Europe to a lesser degree- do support these unpleasant and corrupt regimes, like the shah(Iran), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Syria, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia etc.

We support them because they are useful to us. We're just as happy to support dictators in Christian countries like Greece.

To my knowledge Bush and O.benLaden moved in the same upper walks of life!

That's not even worthy of a response.

Yet we never hear the international community protesting these extremely cynical actions of Europe and the US!

Guess who "the international community" is.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally the UN plan was to make Jerusalem international territory. Giving less than 20% of all land will not do!

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

They lost that war, and now they expect that we forget it ever happenned and go back to 1948 proposed borders?

And who is to assure us they won't make a second attempt?

They can't have it both ways - start a war, and then, when they lose, ask to revert things.

If Israel had lost, there would be no option to "revert" things, as every single Jew would be slaughtered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ya'll are justifying the terracts as result of occupation - an occupation which Israel tried to end in 2000 only to be refused by Arafat.

If they tried to end the occupation then Israel would have pulled out from 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, and not 95%.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If they tried to end the occupation then Israel would have pulled out from 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, and not 95%.

So you are claiming that a missing 5% justifies the terrorist acts?
Again... as stated earlier, those were lands they aquired when the Arab World pulled a sneak attack with the intent to wipe Isreal out. But then again... that fact keeps getting ignored in these threads.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ming


those were lands they aquired when the Arab World pulled a sneak attack with the intent to wipe Isreal out.

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

[CyberGnu]

Drake, I can't find one single mention of yours regarding Europe in this thread. Did I miss something, or did you confuse this thread with one of the myriad other current ME threads?

As I posted in one of those other threads, however, that arabs treat each other badly is not an argument as to why we should allow Israel to do the same. Furthermore, European goverments do condemn other nations which treats their citizens inhumanely, but normally not as publicised as when nations war on each other.

One could argue whether it is morally equal for a goverment to kill a person as it is for an aggressive occupier to kill that person. Most people, and nations, don't think they are morally equivalent. I don't think so either, as I think that every citizen of a society does have some responsibility for who the rulers are, even in a dictatorship. So I'm OK with a nation condemning warcrimes while being less vocal about human rights abuses. You follow me?

You claim that you can make a good case for Eurpoe being biased towards arabs. Would you mind expanding on this? from my experience, europeans are if anything biased against arabs. That this does not translate into partial politics, however, is one more confirmation that EU is the most impartial political body there is. Of course, being the most impartial body does not mean it is perfectly impartial, far from it. It just means that it is more impartial than anything else.

EU's condementation of Israel, however, is nopt because of bias or partiality. It is because EU politicians not only can tell right from wrong, they are also prepared to act accodringly.

I don't know whether Bush can tell right from wrong. I have my doubts. but I'm prefectly sure that even if he would have a second of lucidity, he would most likely not do antyhing about it, since it is feirly well known that he is bought and paid for...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
So you are claiming that a missing 5% justifies the terrorist acts?
Again... as stated earlier, those were lands they aquired when the Arab World pulled a sneak attack with the intent to wipe Isreal out. But then again... that fact keeps getting ignored in these threads.

There was no sneak attack.






Unless you mean the bombing of the USS Liberty.

[CyberGnu]

Ooops, Drake, missed your last point there: I wasn;t trying to paint anything, I was just curious. It's been a debate in the last few days in the LATimes. I find it amusing to see who easy people start labeling media with being biased because the reporting doesn;t conform with a persons particular view.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you are claiming that a missing 5% justifies the terrorist acts?

That 5% includes the area around Jerusalem, closing it off from the Pals... it is imporant.

AH: exactly!

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

Are you so blind that you can't see the difference between Israel and Hitler? Israel acquired land in a war started by Arabs, then kept it for security from the aforementioned Arabs. Hitler attacked neighboring countries that were no threat to Germany solely to take all of their land. It's really not so hard to see the difference.

I'm getting really tired of the black and white view people have on the acquistion of territory. It isn't completely wrong in every circumstance. Like everything in life, it can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Hitler's acquisition of Polish land was wrong, but was the acquisition of Pomerania and Silesia by Poland after WWII wrong? Should the Allies have left Germany with all the land it had before it started WWII? What are the consequences for starting a war if your enemies can't take anything from you if you are defeated? The Arabs started a war, got beat, and lost some land because of it. Now they want it back and many people are ready to give it to them. This is idiotic, IMO. If you don't want to lose any territory, don't start wars you can't win. It's that simple.

Nice troll, Bucephalus. Got me a little riled up, but it would've been better if you hadn't resorted to a Hitler reference. Makes it too easy. 7/10

[chequita guevara]

The actual historical record only shows one war started exclusively by the Arabs, and that was the 1973 war. Every other war was started by Israel, except the 1948 war, was was started by both sides equally. Of course, most history books like to leave out the fact that the Israelis had already occupied parts of the territory that was supposed to be Palestine prior to the invasion of the Arabs. And no one likes to remember that the Israelis were stelaing land from Syria in the 60s, even before they began dropping shells on Israel, or that Israel was threatening to invade Syrai and put a new government in place.

It's always the evil, evil Arabs and the poor innocent Jews. Both sides were bad guys, and the Palesintinians were abused by everyone.

[CyberGnu]

Eli, 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.

And no one in their right mind praises the french resistance for the germans they killed just because they were germans... They praise them because they risked their lives so that France would be free again.

Umm, I'm genguinly curious, where did you get this notion of yours? Was it something you picked up yourself, or does Israeli schools actually teach you that the french resistance was formed to kill nazis?

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

Again we take out our simple rulebook:
Aggression = bad
Defense = good


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

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, I can't find one single mention of yours regarding Europe in this thread. Did I miss something, or did you confuse this thread with one of the myriad other current ME threads?

My first post in this thread was originally directed toward Europeans, but I changed "Europe" to the "international community" right before I posted it so as not to offend anyone. Believe it or not, I like to avoid unnecessary conflict. Sorry about any confusion that might have caused.

As I posted in one of those other threads, however, that arabs treat each other badly is not an argument as to why we should allow Israel to do the same. Furthermore, European goverments do condemn other nations which treats their citizens inhumanely, but normally not as publicised as when nations war on each other.

I think we had a little more confusion here. I wasn't referring to the Arab states treatment of their own citizens. It is horrible, but I think Europeans do a good job of decrying it. My comments were directed towards the part the Arab states played in creating and continuing the Palestinian refugee problem. IMO, the Arab states have used the Pals as a tool to combat Israel with since the inception of the Jewish state. If the Arab states really cared about the Palestinians, they would have allowed them to emigrate a long time ago. They don't care about the Pals, however, and would rather keep the Pals in squalor so that they will continue to be a threat to Israel. The Pals also provide a convenient cause that can be used to divert any unrest towards the regimes in Arab states. This behavior by the Arabs angers me greatly, but I never hear Europeans mention it. All the blame for the current situation seems to be put upon Israel, despite the fact that the Arab states are just as responsible. It doesn't seem like a very objective view of the conflict to me.

You claim that you can make a good case for Eurpoe being biased towards arabs. Would you mind expanding on this?

I believe that Europe has a vested interest in supporting the Arab states for two reasons.

1. Europe gets the majority of its oil from the Arab states, so must maintain good relations with them in order to guarantee its economy stays healthy. Supporting Israel in any way would jeopardize these vital relations.

2. Europe has a large Arab minority that needs to be kept happy. Recent anti-Semitic attacks in France and Germany have demonstrated that the risk of violence amongst the Arab population is not farfetched. What would the Arab population in Europe do if a European country was to side with Israel in this conflict? I don't think any European leaders want to find out.

In short, I think that Europe is just looking out for its own interests. There is nothing wrong with that. What I disagree with, however, is the belief that Europe is completely unbiased and acting completely on moral grounds. Frankly, that's a bunch of bull****. To say that "european nations are as a whole the most impartial of all nations on earth" is not only arrogant, it is also patently untrue IMO.