Israil oversteps the mark

[Bereta_Eder]

Just to clear some things up.

Probably the sameway most of Europe & Imran does. They view Israel as the oppressor and as such the Palestinians are entitled to do whatever they wish.

You are close to the truth Monneypenny

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Probably because it cleanses them of any lingering Holocaust guilt to believe that that Jews would perpetuate genocide. That's also the reason that you've seen the word Nazi bandied about the Continent so freely lately wrt Isael.

Point one: Europe is not Germany.

This leads to this: "Europeans" have no guilt about Jews.
In this affair Europe does not exist. Neither do europeans.
Both terms are inapplicable. Its nation has its history.

So this leads to this: your point is mute

Point two: Using phrases such as "genocide" I think are counterproductive. It is oppression, murder, war crimes but not genocide like in Rwanda for example.

Using words like this miss the point and are an overexageration which can be easily refuted and weakens the CAUSE (send shivers up your spine)

[DinoDoc]

Re: Just to clear some things up.

Originally posted by paiktis22
You are close to the truth Monneypenny

I already knew that Zorba. Europe has a long and bloody history of supporting warfare on civilian populations. Why should I expect it to change now.

Point one: Europe is not Germany.

It doesn't matter if Europe is German or not. The point still holds true.

Point two: Using phrases such as "genocide" I think are counterproductive.

Axi said it. Talk to him about it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Re: Just to clear some things up.

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I already knew that Zorba. Europe has a long and bloody history of supporting warfare on civilian populations. Why should I expect it to change now.

Well, Europe is millenia old.
US is young. And yet it has wiped out the native indians in its infancy. I'd say you did a "good" start and you are catching up fast.
But the point is that you, again missed the point when I thought you were close to it

Europe has a tradition in supporting the "underdog", the imprisoned, the tortured, the enslaved, the occupied

It doesn't matter if Europe is German or not.

Of couse it does.

Axi said it. Talk to him about it.

Many people talk about it from all over the world. It is a general broadcasting I issue

[Sirotnikov]

OK, now you are calling all the media (radio, TV, newspapers) in my country liars? They may lie about many internal news, but why should they lie about the Middle East?

a) if they lie about internal news they do it for political agenda - international news is the same thing
b) they are easily mislead. not being aware of all the facts, many people can tell them lies. I've already wintessed palestinians inventing many things, which the western media happily reported.
c) I know for a fact that BBC lie and distort every possible news piece. They misreport and omit and do not check facts. They create a very false image of things. Forget Jenin, they never accurately covered a suicide bombing, or a visit by an american official. SKY news are much more reliable. Even CNN.
d) If BBC lies, there's no stopping others.

Why should the whole damn Europe cry at the top of their voices that Israel is commiting a genocide if this wasn't true?

For the same reason Europe cried at the top of their voices about several non-existant genocide acts in the balkans.

They want to befriend muslims and want to appease everyone because of their imperialist guilt inferiority.

You do not appease dictators and tyrants. You do not appease hitler, or stalin or saddam or arafat.

If you think Sharon is one - fine. don't appease him. But Europeans systematically only put pressure on Israel.

I am surpised that you choose to counter me in this way. As I said, nothing you can say really gets to me any more.

Look, I know that at least one source of news for you is indymedia, which is complete and total bull****, mostly. And I know it's not the only extreme leftist site that does that.

Every piece of propoganda invented by palestinains, starting from denying the dancing on 9/11, to "keeping palestinain body parts" to "creating incinerators" to "Israel comitted 9/11".

There is simply no way to filter truth from fiction on such sites. And while some lies are obvious, others are not.

I simply don't know what to do.

I see how happily you and dozens of lefties buy that crap. I see WFHermans speaking of the Israelis like they were one person, a crazed palestinian settler.

I don't know what to do.

There simply isn't reliable media today.

CNN is practically American department of state.
BBC is everything anti-american.

The world is not only occupied and occupiers. And while this conflict is about that, it's also about much much more, and by choosing to see this through a set of glasses, you limit yourself.

True, you can think the same about me.

You don't know, the hours I spend at leftie's sites, reading every shred of information. Cross referencing it. writing it down.

There isn't a week passed when I didn't completely denied my current position, reread all positions, and thought everything over, again reaching the same position.

True - I'm limited by my morals and values and positions. For instance I hold my life above that of others. I agree to limit my rights for my security.

I accept the possibility of casualties as "collateral damage".

But even if I changed those positions - one conclusion stays the same - for 100 years, the palestinian leadership is lying to the world and to it's people, and abusing the palestinian people.

The palestinian leadership lives in happyness and wealth, and dreams to kick out the jews, trying to inflame hatred in each new generation.

Until 2000 I believed in Oslo. I believed that peace would come. I thought that Arafat did something to fight terror. I really did.

But it's false. I wanted it to be true, so I believed in it. And most of the people ignored convicting evidence to believe in this vision of peace.

Evidence that existed all along, that the palestinain leadership is trapping Israel and hopes to exploit the Israeli public's desires for peace.

Do I not believe the pals deserve a country? I do.

Do I not think we could have prospered as a united judeo-palestinian nation? I do.

I would have no problems sharing this place, no matter how patriotic and zionist I am.

But everything the palestinian leaders said and done suggests hatred. And the worse part is, they go to incredible efforts to instill that hatred into the people.

And sadly, the palestinian people still do want peace. Just like the Israelis. But they are being raped by the palestinian police. They are being forced by Arafat to stay in their camps. They are being taught that Jews are enemies of Islam. They are being taught against compromise.

But Arafat's propoganda machine is working full steam. And the euros, wanting to believe that everyone is just as peacefull and rational like them, are making the same mistakes like in the 30s with germany.

The euros, still have an urge to allow underdogs to do everything, since for so long they've been the evil occupiers and now they feel bad.

And they misread the Israeli public so much.
And they only listen to the high ranking palestinians, not the people, who are tired of the current leadership.

When I saw how he mocked Colin Powell in front of all the media after their meeting some days ago, I froze on my chair.

?

[CyberGnu]

Natan:

That’s the whole point - Mandatory Palestine was not Syria’s or Egypt’s to “take back.�

OK, I give you that one. Still doesn't pertain to the discussion, as the question was whether the palestinians are to blame for their arab neighbours going to war. (see next)

No, the question is were the Arabs justified in trying to destroy Israel and grab the land. You seem to be saying that they were.

Yes, I do believe the arabs were justified in trying to destroy the nascent Israel. I'm sad they didn't succeed, the world would most likely have been a better place without Israel, and with the ME jews living as part of a palestinian nation. Much like the whites in South Africa today. I don't believe in siros allegations that the arabs intended to kill all jews in the middle east... Quite frankly, muslims have never been particularly good at that genocide thing. That seems to be the forte of christianity and judaism. (with some sprinkling of far eastern nationalism as well).

Now, whether the arab neighbours would have allowed the palestinians to form their own country I don't know. I think they would, most likely since the arabs had supported that idea since the 20's.

I don’t see how you can possibly interpret the application of the principle that “Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM�

Actually, I can't see how you fail to see the connection here... someone performing a crime is a criminal. the police, the defender of the law, have a mandate to stop the crime and to protect themselves while doing so. If the criminal is threatening the life or limb of a police officer, the police officer has the right to shoot the criminal. again, preferentially in a way not to kill the criminal, but if that happens it is not the fault of the police.

Perhaps most importantly, this is not an equal relationship. The police must not be in danger of being killed to have the right to shoot the criminal. Any kind of physical harm is enough to warrant a potentially deadly repsonse.

Thus, while the police officer does have a directive to minimize risk to the criminal, this is superceeded by a directive to minimize risk to self. ONLY IF THE POLICE OFFICER IS IN NO DANGER HIMSELF DOES HE HAVE TO CARE ABOUT SAVING THE LIFE OF THE CRIMINAL

[CyberGnu]

Ooops, hit tab instead of caps lock...

Now, regarding the 'innocent bystander', the people in Kosovo are not exactly analogous to innocent bystanders, more like accomplices in a crime.

The civilians in Serbia did allow the goverment to be in power. That makes them accomplices. They contribute to the economy, which makes them accomplices. Hey, the only people I wouldn't consider an accomplice would be a Serbian political prisoner... He obviously stood up to the goverment.

Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence.


Genocide includes killing people on the basis of nationality.

Non-sequiter. The jsutification to kill ISraelis has nothing to do with nationality but the actions taken by the collective members. Stop the aggression, and the justification to kill israelis disappear.

But aside from that technical aspect, I just don’t think it makes it less horrifying that you want to kill innocent people that you’d let them go if they didn’t interfere with your political goals.

Non-sequiter. Not once have I expressed an intention to kill innocent people.

That’s just absurd. Do I call che and ramo anti-semites? Do I call Imran an anti-semite? No, I don’t. Do I even call you an anti-semite?

Actually, you have... It was a while ago.

Germany was a special case because of the genocide, which meant that even if we killed millions of German civillians, we probably made a net savings of human life by preventing them from exterminating Slavs and others. Japan was a similar case, what with what they were doing in China. But of course, there are grey areas. People argue about whether bombing Dresden and dropping the nuclear bomb were morally acceptable acts.

The west didn't actually know about the genocide until long after the Allies started carpet bombing german cities. You think Churchill and Roosevelt were warcriminals? Were they just lucky that Hitler was conducting genocide,so their actions were justified in afterhand?

Any thoughts on why the US let Japan rape China for ten years before joining the war? No connection with Pearl Harbor, I assume. And you obviously doesn't agree with the realization that the US got from WW2, that letting aggressors occupy other nations only leads to more suffering in the end...

What about UN intervention in Quwait? Are the US morally repsonsible for the Iraqi civilian casualties? I don't know anyone in the entire western world who thinks Churchill or Bush Sr. should stand on trial for warcrimes... Well, apart from you, I guess...

So tell me, at how many different times do I have to sell your car before it becomes no longer yours? You’re the one who’s using this poor analogy to describe how borders change.

From what I can tell, non-sequiter. I might be wrong, but you would have to explain it.

17-04-2002 20:20



quote:


Not relevant. And quite frankly, not lucid, either... How is taking back what is yours considered 'grabbing more land'?


That’s the whole point - Mandatory Palestine was not Syria’s or Egypt’s to “take back.�
quote:


But anyway, the question is whether the palestinians are to blame for what their arab neighbours did, and I think the answer is obvious.


No, the question is were the Arabs justified in trying to destroy Israel and grab the land. You seem to be saying that they were.
quote:


And you still have a problem separating what I'm saying from your odd interpretations. Maybe the problem is mine, for assuming you are an intelligent adult...

Try to see it this way: Police have a mandate to shoot people in attempts to stop crime. This is uncontested. Does this in any imply that police can shoot people indiscriminately, or even that we'd PREFER police to shoot people instead of arresting them? Of course not.
And yet, this is your conclusion of my remark that the world has accepted that civilian casulties are acceptable in order to stop aggression.


I don’t see how you can possibly interpret the application of the principle that “Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM� to the Kosovo conflict as having anything to do with whether police would prefer to shoot people instead of arresting them. I don’t see how you got from point A to point B at all. Complete non-sequiter. This is not about whether NATO would prefer not to kill Serbian civillians, this is about whether NATO, once it is forced to take military action, has an obligation to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. In short, the question is, once the police are forced to shoot at the armed owner of the drug den, can they kill as many of the customers as they want while they’re at it?
quote:


Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence.


Genocide includes killing people on the basis of nationality. But aside from that technical aspect, I just don’t think it makes it less horrifying that you want to kill innocent people that you’d let them go if they didn’t interfere with your political goals.
quote:


But I guess that doesn't fit in your preconcieved view of the world... where, if I have understood things correcly, anyone who disagrees that jews have the right to kill anyone weaker then them and steal their land is an anti-semite.


That’s just absurd. Do I call che and ramo anti-semites? Do I call Imran an anti-semite? No, I don’t. Do I even call you an anti-semite?
quote:


So where is this middle ground? how many millions of civilians are justified? 30 million civilians died in WW2, 15 of them german. That was apparently justified. Or is it a percentage?


Germany was a special case because of the genocide, which meant that even if we killed millions of German civillians, we probably made a net savings of human life by preventing them from exterminating Slavs and others. Japan was a similar case, what with what they were doing in China. But of course, there are grey areas. People argue about whether bombing Dresden and dropping the nuclear bomb were morally acceptable acts.
quote:


no, America is mine because my middlke initial is 'I'. oh, that doessn't make sense? So? Neither does your example. We've been through it about sixty billion times.


So tell me, at how many different times do I have to sell your car before it becomes no longer yours? You’re the one who’s using this poor analogy to describe how borders change.

quote:


Would you mind telling me, in detail how you came up with the previous conclusion? What statements of mine supports the idea that invasion is 'worse' than genocide?

As anyone even moderatly literate can see, I make no value judgement about genocide vs aggression. But they are DIFFERENT crimes.


Comparing robbery to robbery followed by murder is very different from comparing robbery to murder. Similarly, comparing genocide to aggression followed by genocide is not the same thing as comparing genocide and aggression. When you said that aggression should be fought by “all means necessary� but that genocide should be fought by peaceful means “If possible� (note that the phrase “all means necessary� was ommitted from the discussion of genocide, and the phrase “peaceful means if possible� ommitted from the discussion of aggression) I assumed that you thought aggression was worse than genocide. Generally, if one crime is fought with more serious means, it is a more serious crime. However, you have sinced either clarified or changed your position, so the issue is moot.

quote:


Now, up to this point, we've been dealing with the people in a neighbouring country, and what they are justified in doing.

Perhaps this is what you haven't understood. We haven't dealt at all with what the citizens if a country carrying out genocide on its own citizens would be justified in doing. I think the same rule goes here. Genocide is a crime of aggression.


Here’s what I don’t understand:
“The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.“
Which citizens are we reffering to who have a responsibility in the first case? The perpetrators of the genocide or the victims?

I thought that was selfobvious as well... The ones suffering casualties in the attempts to stop it. It is likely that some of the victims would be killed as well, but as you said yourself, the total number of innocent lives saved would be greater.

Now is it your claim that murdering all the citizens of an enemy country is not genocide or that that would be an exception to the rule

Genocide is the killing of people of an ethnic group, translated into 'people that can't stop belonging to this group, i.e. being born into or religiously affiliated with'. (AFAIK, religion is treated as something that is non-changeable by conscious actions...). The point is: If you are killed for being a jew, that is genocide. If you are killed for being homosexual, that is a hate crime, which is genocide on a smaller scale. But if you are killed because your country invades another country, that is not genocide.

In WW2, more 'aryan' german civilians died than jews. This does not make the Allied actions genocide. If was called 'defense'.

If by that you mean that some violations of human rights are worse than others (I think that’s what you mean) then I whole-heartedly agree. I hope you do too.

Umm, that has been my position all along... You were the one who brought up some UN declaration of a minimum two weeks vacation, and how nations not adhering to that would be evil...

So in short, the UN has not criticized China but merely “attempted� to do so. That’s meaningless.

You specifically asked about the UN, did you not? But apart from the UN, every single human rights organization has publically critisized China. Most european goverments likewise. The U.S. as well. I don't read news from South America, but I wouldn't be suprised if Brazil, Argentine has done likewise.

It was Clinton who made the visit.

Yeah, you are right. Confused the two there... Well, in Clintons defense, he actually had a plan... By allowing more capitalist influences in China, he believed that Chinas political scence would change as well. I don't think that he was right in his belief... Overall was Clintons grasp of foreign politics fairly bad...

Anyway, I don't think this really has any bearing on the argument...

So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to have economic dealings with aggressors, as long as you make a half-hearted effort to get the UN to issue a meaningless condemnation of them afterwards? We can have increased economic dealings with China while fully supporting the right of the Tibetans to do whatever necessary to end Chinese aggression? That doesn’t sound right to me.

Refer back to 'ideology vs. practicality'. I have already covered China/Tibet once in this thread... It is annoying enough to have to repeat myself from different threads...

although, I don't think you understand what it means to be a economical body as opposed to a political one. As en economic body, the IMF is not supposed to have a politcal agenda of its oen. This emans that the purpose of the IMF is to promote free trade for all member states. It is no the place of IMF to ponder political issues. That is the task for the goverments of the states IMF consists of. If those goverments come up with the idea that Iraq should be embargoed, then the IMF has to take that into account. It's an abstract process, totally separated from issues of morality.

Is it meaningful to say that you “recieved loans� when at the same time you are ordered to pay vast reparations? And is a treaty made under durress binding?

What durress? Germany lost an aggressive war... they have themselves to blame. The only duress in this process would have been France/England/US, who signed a peace treaty without unconditional surrender... Which I think is the only morally just action from an aggressor. They were concerned with minimizing their own casualties, so they accepted a less than unconditional surrender.

Yes but IIRC, no one was punished solely for “waging aggressive war.� It was the weakest charge, because the allies were guilty of it too in several cases.

Any sources for this?

I think that has a lot to do with the fact that one side was clearly defeated.

I have no idea how this supports your claim... I think it supports mine.

It also has a lot to do with the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

Which again supports my claim... Nowing that aggression could lead to nuclear annihilation, even non-nuclear nations hesitate to wage war.

If you really think this proves that the UN charter ban on aggression has been effective, I think we should also discuss the control of other countries without official annexation, a practice which technically worked around changing attitudes without changing the underlying imperialist policy. Stalin annexed Poland in 1945 just as surely as if he’d made it the “Polish SSR,� but maintained the illusion of independence. So nothing really changed; nations still fought each other and grabbed land, but now, they often made the grabbing unofficial.

Well, I think this shows that nothing in life is perfect, but we should still strive for a better world. If it was left to the US alone, I think the US would have opposed Stalins takeover. Unfortunately, russia was to strong for the US to protest... Much like the China/Tibet situation.

But witht eh fall of the Berlin wall many people hoped that the stalemate was over, and aggression could be fought every time, as was shown in Quwait. Unfortunately, the U.S. is loosing all moral capital by actively supporting aggression in Israel...

Ah, yes . . . no wars in Rwanda-Burundi lately, peaceful Ethiopian-Eritrean border for the last decade, Zaire enjoying peace and prosperity. Meanwhile, in South America, the peaceful soccer war, the conflict in Nicaragua, and numerous other peaceful events. Really, where did you get this idea? Conflicts are not stopped by UN decree. Of course, most of these examples I’ve used are not-interestate conflicts, but most of them are also nastier than many interstate conflicts. It should also be noted that those two areas had also been relatively quiet before WWII.

As you said yourself, not interstate conflicts. Civil wars are tricky, it is hard to assign an aggressor and defender... Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to calm down both sides, as in Somalia, but they are tricky.

When did borders change in South America last? When did one country actually invade another?

They’re clear in the sense that you can usually point to a very specific line on the map and say it’s a border. But morally speaking, I don’t attach great signifigance to those lines.

Well, that doesn't make sense. Well, it is in line with your arguemtn that if you are strong enough you can take whatever you want and call it moral, I guess...

So if the deal has to be non-coerced, how can Versailles possibly count?

see above

Okay, but is there any government anywhere which says that the current regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait are not the legitimate governments of their respective countries because they are not democratically elected?

Actually, this is the official policy of the US state department. Ideologially, that is. Based on some tract which says that a goverment has their mandate from the masses, or something like that.

Naturally, the US still deals with those goverments as if they were legitimate. I vs P.

I’m arguing that our support for dictatorial regimes is not a case of practicality winning out over ideology, but rather that we simply do not consider dictatorships illegitimate governments.

And I think you are wrong. Have you read the news the last few days? Have you seen Bush backpedal like a dog facing a shark because of the venezualan faux pas?

I see that you are not aware that part of Kashmir (called Aksai Chin) is occupied by China and has been since 1959. Yet I have never seen any condemnation of this ilegal occupation.

I had no idea about this, actually. Moot, though, since it would be covered by the China/Tibet thing again, wouldn't it?

I don’t see why occupation is synonymous with illegitimate. Our occupation was completely justified by the preceding war and genocide, therefore, we and the other allied powers were the legitimate government.

No, they were legitimate occupying powers, as opposed to illegitimate occupying powers such as China and Israel.

See above about mandate of the masses. Unless the german people got to vote for a US president (and french, english and russian, of course), the german people can't have a US legitimate goverment...

Look, this is basically a philosofical question. It has no practical value, I think... and my time is limited. Is there anywhere you want to get with this?

Did you read what I wrote? It was: “a democratic country may [/i]not[/i] allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole.� (emphasis added) That is, the issue is not when the democratic government grants cessation, but when it does not.

Umm, I don't understand your point, then.

Cyber, I’ve never seen anyone argue that the southerners of 1860 were different from the southerners of 1787 or 1776. They were the same people; no migration was involved. It’s just that in 1860 they decided they wanted out of what they had joined three quarters of a century before.

This goes to show that one shouldn't write these things when one is too tired...

That the south was not allowed to cesseede is based on womething else altogether... It did not have the mandate of the masses as well. About 60% of the voters in the southern states were for independence. However, the blacks did not have a vote, and since they constituted well more than 20% of the population, I think we can safely assume that a majority of the population was against independance.

So how far back does a migration have to go before it becomes legitimate? For example, the Turks in Cyprus came there in Ottoman times. Also, wouldn’t this make Texan independence, and thus the resulting annexation, completely illegitimate?

Haven't thought much about timelimits, since I don't think they are valuable for anything but moot points for Israeli aopologists... It is like saying 'when did the western world become civilized?'. 1945? 1814? 1632? 1945 would be my latest date...

[CyberGnu]

Once you start arguing for nuclear extermination as a means of preventing border adjustment, I feel the need to make absolutely sure we’re on the same page on what would be trivial topics in a discussion with someone who thinks civillian casualties should be avoided. Once you base your ideas on the rights of states rather than on saving human life, I have no further basis for assuming you will allow a state to take action against another state to save human lives rather than to save the state or its territorial integrity.
Furthermore, it seemed blatantly obvious to me that if genocide is taking place, taking more time to stop the genocide means (more or less by definition) that more people will be killed. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that peaceful means will not stop the genocide as quickly as violent ones. Hence, the need to request clarification when you say genocide should first be fought with non-violent means.

Well, I think it is a question about minimizing [innocent casualties. Invading a country to save ten lives is not 'cost-effective', as even the Quwait conflict cost 20 or so casualties. You see what I mean? And even nuking a city might kill more of the genocide victims than would be killed by the nuked country in the first place...

Defending from invasion, on the other hand, is up to the invaded nation. If they feel that sending out a suicide bomber is worth it, well they have the moral authority to do so...

Yes, those are all the things I find abhorent. You may have noticed substantial concern about civillian casualties in Serbia, Iraq, and other places, in which case you’ll see that there are other people who agree with me. If I criticize your opinion, repeating it again so that I can see again what I’m disagreeing with doesn’t really accomplish anything.

I repeat them, but you don't seem to read them. I have never said that we should not minimize civilian casualties IF WE CAN DO SO WITHOUT INCURRING CASUALTIES OURSELVES. See the nuking of Japan, for example.

Would the liberators even be obliged to make sure the aggressors know about the threat before carrying it out?

As long as it doesn't put the liberators in danger.

And wouldn’t there be in many cases a threat of nuclear retaliation if the first strike is not utterly devestating?

Umm, it was part of your original hypothetical setup that nuclear retaliation was impeded, remember?

I don’t see how “depending on the circumstances� can be taken as a yes or a no, since it means both.

I don't think there is room for grey areas in a yes/no question... Refusing to answer is just a way to avoid stating your own view, knowing that most people would find it repugnant.

[CyberGnu]

dino:

See my posts with Natan.


furthermore, how about objective basis... Israel is occupying land it stole from palestinians... That makes the Israelis aggressors ackording to every single objective criteria in the world. Only an Israli apologist or nietzchevian philosphist would argue differently... Well, perhaps a few members of the chinese goverment as well.

I think I might try your tack in teaching though.

Gnu: What is the reason cyclohexatriene is so much more stable than cyclopentadiene? If you mention the words aromaticity or delocalization I will consider it non-answers.

That would make grading so incredibly easy... I could just stamp '0' on every single page...

[CyberGnu]

Siro:

You do not appease dictators and tyrants. You do not appease hitler, or stalin or saddam or arafat.

If you think Sharon is one - fine. don't appease him. But Europeans systematically only put pressure on Israel.

Umm, you don't see the inconsistency in those two statements? sharon = tyrant = should no be appeased = Israel being pressured to stop him.

It is quite a simple logical chain...


As for not appeasing Arafat... Well, as soon as palestine invades another country, I'll be first in line to try to stop him, you have my word on that.



It seems you took my critisism of Israeli media to heart. I wish you'd act on it though, and stop believing what they write.

True - I'm limited by my morals and values and positions. For instance I hold my life above that of others. I agree to limit my rights for my security.

So why then are you not vocal about leaving palestine? Why are you supporting Sharon, the single biggest security threat Israel has ever seen? Sharon, the reason more Israelis have been killed in the last two months than in the ten years of the Oslo process?

The euros, still have an urge to allow underdogs to do everything, since for so long they've been the evil occupiers and now they feel bad.

Well, sweden hasn't been in war since 1812, I think... We have NO collective guilt over occupation, I can assure you that... What we have is a more developed sense of right and wrong...

And they misread the Israeli public so much.

Que? You are actually NOT suporting Sharon?

And they only listen to the high ranking palestinians, not the people, who are tired of the current leadership.
[/quote]


Ahh, yes, I assume those dastardly opinion polls are all lying... Arafat does not have skyhigh popularity figures right now...

Perhaps the only thingg that Sharon has ever done that is good.... Although, he probably didn;t mean it. Luckily for us, while Hitler was not only an evil man, he was also brilliant. Sharon is just an evil man...

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

furthermore, how about objective basis... Israel is occupying land it stole from palestinians... That makes the Israelis aggressors ackording to every single objective criteria in the world.

Errr... not if somebody else attacked the Israelis from that land first...

-in which case the Israelis are actually defending against aggression.

-In which case, according to CyberGnu, any action taken by Israel is inherently justified and we should all just shut up and let them take care of business...

[SpencerH]

As soon as a Palestinian state, incorporating the West Bank and Gaza is formed, totally soverign over that area, then I'll be the first to decry government sponsered terrorism. Until that time, it the way to fight back against the colonials.

You'll never get it. The Israeli's are as stubborn as anyone else about threats. In the meantime, the Palestinians throw away any support they have for a Palestinian state (and I would guess that there is a lot of support under the table) by condoning terrorism.

[CyberGnu]

Guardian, yes, in that hypothetical situation you would be right. What bearing does this have on the argument though?

[GeneralTacticus]

[quote] Guardian, yes, in that hypothetical situation you would be right. What bearing does this have on the argument though? [./quote]

The Pals ARE attacking Israel from the occupied territories. Therefore the Israelis are only defending themselves.

[CyberGnu]

The Pals ARE attacking Israel from the occupied territories. Therefore the Israelis are only defending themselves.

You don't see the logic flaw in that sentence?

Hint: consider the sentence 'He started it when he hit me back'.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
furthermore, how about objective basis... Israel is occupying land it stole from palestinians... That makes the Israelis aggressors ackording to every single objective criteria in the world.

On what basis did the palestinians claim sovereignty of that land in the first place?