Israel is a rascist state

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston
Nice initiation of posting at Apolyton there, DerSchwarzfalke!

Welcome aboard.

Glad to have someone that can back up your arguments for you?

[Winston]

Yes.

[Iskandar Reza]

About the suicide bombers. Consider the facts. If you live in a land where your people are oppressed by the superior majority, and your military is outnumbered vastly, not to mention your technology is low-tech, this is what would happen.

You grow up knowing nothing but hatred to the other side. You've seen your friends, families, loved ones, die. Brutalised. You are full of hate. You have nothing left to live for. Nothing left to lose. And again full of hate. And desire for vengeance. Wouldn't you rather die and take out the people who did this? Would you think clearly and know who exactly killed your loved ones? You'd generalise. You'd just want revenge. And since you have nothing left to lose or to live for, why not? And since you also have this warped sense that killing innocent civillians also grant you the pass to heaven, why won't you?

I don't condone suicide bombings. There is no honour in killing innocent, and not to mention, it is strictly forbidden in the Quran. And so is suicide.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
The War of Independence was initiated by the Arab nations who refused to recognize Israel's existence. So, that's one not launched by Israel.

Israel and the Arab states all launched an invasion of the Arab-designated section of Palestine. Israel and Jordan, in fact, had an agreement to partition Palestine. After the initial truce, Israel resumed hostilities four times, always the sole aggressor. The limit of Arab agression against the Israeli state fighting was an aborted attack by Syria and one Egyptian column thrust towards Tel Aviv (the other Egyptian column heading towards the Jordanians to try and stop them from annexing all of Arab Palestine themselves.

The 1956 Sinai Campaign was a little more blatant, but that was done with British and French cooperation and acquiesance against Nasser. Too bad the Europeans didn't do the job right. I'll give you that one.

Well thank you.

The Six Days War of 1967 was a little more iffy; it is pretty much agreed among all circles that the Arab states were going to attack Israel within days, so Israel attacked first to gain the advantage -- a 'proactive defense' if you will

It is not pretty much agreed that the Arab states were going to attack Israel, unless you mean the debate is only among supporters of Israel. The US, at the time, did not believe that the Arabs were going to attack, and the Israelis came to the US a month before the war looking for permission to start a war. Israel was making war noises at Syria. Egypt had a defence pact with Syria, and moved forces to the boder to get Israel to back down. Jordan also had a defense pact with Egypt, and when Egypt was attacked, they held to the agreements. But Israel started the war.

The Yom Kippur War of 1973 caught Israel off guard with the initial invasion, so I don't see how they possibly could have started that one.

That's the one I don't count. You'll note I also left out the 1969 War of Attrition, but I don't know enough about that fight to make any comment about it.

And then there's the Lebanese Invasion, if you want to consider that part of the Israeli-Arab wars, in which Israel invaded Lebanon after guerrillas based in Southern Lebanon attacked Israel repeatedly. Again, it wasn't blind aggression or a land grab; it was a military operation to secure Israel's borders.

Given that just about everyone except the US and Israel recongize that the PLO had followed the 1981 Cease-fire agreement with Israel, your comment about guerillas attacking Israel repeated does not hold water. This was a blatent attack by Israel to destroy the PLO, which was gaining legitimacy by adhering to the cease-fire.

If you would like, you can run a search with my name and try and find my muh longer comments on these events. Since I've done it repeatedly, and I have no mind to do it again for at least another six months.

[Dinner]

I once sat in a room with a man from Ireland and listened to him argue with a Unionist from Northern Ireland. The southerner told the northerner that all the Unionist were just British invaders and they should "go home". His family had lived in Ireland for 500 years yet they still insisted he was a foreigner. Many Jews have been in Isreal for half a century or even a century yet you still call them "outsiders". Sad really.

I don't recall the exact number but in 1920 Jews made up 20% of the mandates population. Are these Jews also outsiders or foreign invaders? True immigration has changed the demographics of the country but these people also call the land home and they have a right to live there even if you consider them outsiders. The human demographics of most places change all the time; that goes back to what I said about none of use being "natives" who have always lived in one place. We have to look at all the people who live some where and not just a select few.

With all this talk about occupier and occupied we are over simplifying something that is really complex. In 1945 Germany was occupied and divided by the allies after it started a war of aggression against its neighbors. Germany was not some poor country unfairly exploited by stronger powers it started a war and lost.

The Arab states have invaded Isreal three times in the last 60 years. These were acts of aggression not the acts of a peaceful defender. Isreal after defeating the invaders found themselves in control of territory it didn't seek and didn't know what to do with. Through the return of the Sinai and the PA territories Isreal has shown that it is willing to end the occupation and return lands if its past invaders will swear off violence and abide by the rule of law. So far Eygpt and Jordan are the only two to agree. The Palistinian leadership has talked the talk but, unlike Eygpt and Jordan, they will not walk the walk. They continue to finiance, coordinate, and provide bases of opporation for terrorist attacks against Isreal.

And you wonder why such extream measures as "no Arab" housing blocks must be implimiented. The protection of human life is the highest value other considerations are secondary.

Chegitz, you and I can atleast agree that Kosovo is not an ideal solution but it is atleast better then the current situation in the middle east. I went out on a limb and tried to suggest a possible solution. How do you see the situation being remedied?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oerdin, saying the Palestinians aren't the aggressors is not the same as saying they are peaceful. However, it cannot be denied that the Palestinians are the natives of the land of Palestine, and that the Jews are outsiders.

Regardless of whether you think the Israelis or the Arabs started the various wars, the fact remains that the Palestinians are occupied, and hence the defenders. Israel is the occupier, hence the aggressor.


And Kosovo is not what I'd call a success story, seeing as the Albanian mafia, aka, the KLA has ethnicly cleansed the province.

[KrazyHorse]

Many Jews have been in Isreal for half a century or even a century yet you still call them "outsiders". Sad really

Most have not.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Operation Peace in the Galilee was only launched after PLO guerrillas ambushed a bus on the route between Haifa and Tel Aviv, killing about thirty people. If that's not violating a ceasefire, I don't know what is.

As for the War of Independence, all the Arabs marched into Israel promising to drive the Jews into the sea. Syria's leadership promised Palestinian Arabs that they could come back in the wake of the advancing, victorious armies and take whatever Jewish land they wanted; that is the route of the Palestinian refugee problem more than any Israeli 'ethnic cleansing.' You cannot deny, however, that the Arabs attacked first; even if the Israelis wanted to attack first, it would have been impossible given the weapon and manpower situation of the Haganah.

And considering how many airplanes Israel destroyed on the first day in the Sinai in '67, and that Nasser just expelled the UN forces there, and that he was piling tanks and troops into the Sinai, and that all the Arab nations were rumbling once again about war... well, I think it's pretty obvious they were going to attack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Many Jews have been in Isreal for half a century or even a century yet you still call them "outsiders". Sad really.

That's less than a life time. The people who lived on the land stolen are still alive.

I don't recall the exact number but in 1920 Jews made up 20% of the mandates population. Are these Jews also outsiders or foreign invaders?

That's after two decades of immigration. Jews made up something like 5% of the population at the turn of the 20th Century. By the time of the partition, Jews were still only about 30% of the population, only 675,000 people. There are four million Jews there today. The vast majority of them are all foreigners.

True immigration has changed the demographics of the country but these people also call the land home and they have a right to live there even if you consider them outsiders.

That's another argument. I personally believe in open immigration. However, in the context of a colonial war, which this is, it needs to be kept in focus that the Israelis weren't just sitting around minding their own business but were actively taking someone else's land away.

In 1945 Germany was occupied and divided by the allies after it started a war of aggression against its neighbors. Germany was not some poor country unfairly exploited by stronger powers it started a war and lost.

Had the Allies treated Germany the way that the Israelis treated the Palestinians for the last 35 years, they'd have been justified in waging a war of liberation.

The Arab states have invaded Isreal three times in the last 60 years.

Israel has not once been invaded. Land that Israel was holding beyound their alloted territories has been. All of the fighting in 1948 took place on land outside the Jewish partition with one exception, in which Moshe Dyan fended off a Syrian tank column with a rusty howitzer. When the Arabs attacked in 1973, Israel was not attacked, but rather Israel forces in Arab occupied territory. The Israelis started all the other wars (both sides started the 1948 war).

Isreal after defeating the invaders found themselves in control of territory it didn't seek and didn't know what to do with.

Just like how Britain found itself in control of half the world? Israel wanted the 1967 War. Since 1948 It had been trying to take the Sinai. This war also gave it the rest of Palestine and the Golan, which it wanted. The day the war stopped, some 15,000 Palestinians were evicted from their homes around Jersualem, their homes destroyed, and the land taken over. Today they are Jewish suburbs. It immediately began diverting water from the Golan and the Jordan. It knew exactly what its war aims where and it achieved them.

Through the return of the Sinai and the PA territories Isreal has shown that it is willing to end the occupation and return lands if its past invaders will swear off violence and abide by the rule of law.

As soon as Sadat came to power in 1969 he began trying to make peace with Israel. Israel rejected him and the other Arab leaders. So they began to try and take their land back. Finally when the Israelis decided they wanted peace, it was because their forces were spread too thin. Israel wanted to destroy the PLO, which had recently relocated to Lebanon. It could not do so without making peace with Egypt, so it did. As soon as it had peace, it attacked Lebanon in 1977. However, Carter forced the Israelis to pull back, and they had to wait for a more amenable President (Reagan) to resume their plans.

How do you see the situation being remedied?

Well I can say that collective punishments are definately not the solution. First off, the Israelis need to understand they are dealing with a culture in which honor is a very real force. While we might be able to say that people need to be able to swallow their pride, in Arab culture, honor can be more valuable than life (not universally true). This requires that the Israelis stop humiliating the Palestinians. It also requires that when they make a peace offering, it not be like the Clinton-Barak updating of the Versailles treaty.

Personally, I'd prefer a one-state solution, Arabs and Jews together. We need to think of this in terms of a civil war. How do we reconcile to sides that need to live together. I think a Bosnian solution may be a good temporary starting place.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not a lie.

Israel started the following wars:
1948
1956
1967
and
1982

If the war hadn't ended so abruptly, I'd include the aborted invasion of Lebanon in 1977. But the US yanked Israel's chain that time.

Israel was not alone in starting the 1948 war, and you can argue that they were justified in starting the 1967 war (though they weren't). That doesn't change the fact that they started all those wars.

In 1948 five Arab States invaded Isreal the day after the British army left. Hardly an act of agression to refuse to surrender when the armies of other countries attack the land which the U.N. and the international community negotiated for Isreal.

1956 war was started when Egypt tried to close the strait of Acabba and began to shell Isreali ships going into that Isreali port of Eilat on the Red sea. In 1950 the Isreali's communicated to the Egyptians, through the swiss, that any attempts to close the straits or to shell Isreali ships would be considered an act of war. Nasser thought he could rally the Arab world and tried to close the straights any way. I don't know about your book but in mine attacking ships is an aggressive act of war on the part of Egypt.

1967 Egypt, who also commanded Jordan's military, announced that they were going to finally "drive the Jews into the Sea" and destroy Isreal for ever. The Egyptians moved half of their army and most of there armor into the Sinai, Syria began around the clock shelling of Isreal from across the border, and Jordan & Palistinian sabatours inflitraited across the border and planted bomb after bomb inside Isreal. All of these bombs were aimed at bus stops, child day care centers and othe "soft" targets instead of military targets. Isreal decided to strike back by similtanisiously striking back against the Syrian artiliary posts in the Golan, the Terriotist training camps in Jordan (both of whom had already attacked Isreal), and by launching a surprise attack against Egypt (who had not attacked but who said they would attack and who had moved their forces into attack positions).

1975-1990 Lebanon was engauged in a three way civil war against Sunni, Shiite, and Christian factions. The war started when Muslims, who were economicly less well off the Christians, began burning & looting Christian businesses. Sunni leaders then tried to impose Sunni Muslim religious law over the entire country this cased Christians and Shiites to take up arms in their own malitias. During the resulting civil war Palistinian terror groups set up shop in Lebanon and begun launching raids and rocket attacks into Isreal. In 1982 Isreal responded by forming a buffer zone in Lebanon and the terror attacks inside Isreal slowed to a trickle, however, violnce in the buffer zone intensified.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Iskandar Reza
About the suicide bombers. Consider the facts. If you live in a land where your people are oppressed by the superior majority, and your military is outnumbered vastly, not to mention your technology is low-tech, this is what would happen.

Funny, I don't recall any African American suicide bombers.

I don't condone suicide bombings. There is no honour in killing innocent, and not to mention, it is strictly forbidden in the Quran. And so is suicide.

Too bad that Palestinian school books promote suicide bomers.

Too bad that Palestinian schools have as much overt infiltration by Hamas and Jihad.

read the link in my sig.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
Operation Peace in the Galilee was only launched after PLO guerrillas ambushed a bus on the route between Haifa and Tel Aviv, killing about thirty people. If that's not violating a ceasefire, I don't know what is.

Since the PLO didn't exist until 1965 and didn't become active until after 1967, that's impossible.

As for the War of Independence, all the Arabs marched into Israel promising to drive the Jews into the sea.

Since Israel's teritory was not once attacked except by a Syrian tak column that was easily scared off, I'd say you were misinformed.

Syria's leadership promised Palestinian Arabs that they could come back in the wake of the advancing, victorious armies and take whatever Jewish land they wanted; that is the route of the Palestinian refugee problem more than any Israeli 'ethnic cleansing.'

No, it is only a small part of the refugee problem. Another part was the massacre at Dier Yassin, the driving of the Jaffa Arabs into the sea, and the Lyddah Death March. The major part, however, was that civilians always flee approaching armies, with the expectation that they can come back when the fighting is over. Most Arabs did not leave because they were forced out, nor because they were tricked out, but because they simply didn't want to be in the path of an oncomming battle. I don't know why that's so hard for most people to understand.

You cannot deny, however, that the Arabs attacked first; even if the Israelis wanted to attack first, it would have been impossible given the weapon and manpower situation of the Haganah.

I can deny it, because that is what happened. May 15, 1948 found Israel with its troops outside the Jewish designated portion of Palestine and expanding. They expanded in every direction, including in the direction of those whom they had made a pact with, splitting Palestine, the Jordanians. Only the Jordanians and Iraqis were able to hold off the Israelis.

Given that the Arabs sent a scant 23,000 troops into Palestine, and that the Jordanians and Iraqis and Lebanese did not advance on Israeli lines, it was simple for Israel to do what it wanted. And that doesn't include Jewish irregulars. By the end of the war, the Jews had more than double the number of troops that Arabs had. The only place the Jews faced stiff opposition was when they attacked the Jordanians and Iraqis.

And considering how many airplanes Israel destroyed on the first day in the Sinai in '67, and that Nasser just expelled the UN forces there, and that he was piling tanks and troops into the Sinai, and that all the Arab nations were rumbling once again about war... well, I think it's pretty obvious they were going to attack.

First, Nassar's entire airforce was destroyed on the ground. Second, while it's true that the Egyptians expelled the UN, the Israelis never allowed them on their side of the boder to begin with. All the Arab nations were not rumbling about war. Syria was a pitifully weak state that desperately wanted to avoid war. Egypt had jut spent the last four years losing a war in Yemen. Jordan knew it couldn't beat the Israelis.

Nassar did not expect war. He expected the Israelis to back down from their threats againt the Syrians. He thought the threat of a two front war would make the Israelis back down. He was wrong. He merely gave them the excuse they wanted to take the Sinai.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In 1948 . . . .

Dealt with twice.

1956 war was started when Egypt tried to close the strait of Acabba and began to shell Isreali ships going into that Isreali port of Eilat on the Red sea.

The Straits of Tiran were closed to Israel in 1948, not 1956. Why did it take them eight years to deicde they had to do something about it? Since Israel no Israeli shipping went through there since the creation of Israel, it's hardly possible for them to have had ships there to shell.

In 1950 the Isreali's communicated to the Egyptians, through the swiss, that any attempts to close the straits or to shell Isreali ships would be considered an act of war.

Since the Straits are entirely within Egptian territory, it was within their legal right to close them to 3rd parties. Just as Canada could close the St. Lawrence seaway to the US if it had a mind to do so.

1967 Egypt, . . .

Dealt with.

1975-1990 Lebanon ...

wrong, and dealt with.


Now look, you've drawn me into an argument I didn't want to have.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Oerdin, 'competing claims' does not mean both of them have merit. I can claim that I own your house. You can claim the same. That would make our position 'competing claims'. Mine would be unfounded, of course.

Is it stealing if the recognized legal owner and administrator, the U.K., gives it to you and the U.N. and the enitre international community communist and capitalist alike all agree that it is yours?

Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of arabs when they forcibly created their country. After that, they still didn;t have enough, so they occupied some more. Now their greed wont let them leave even a measly 22% of palestine to the people who own it...

As usual, leaves me with a sense of disgust...

You are "forcibly creating a country" when five armies invade land that is, internationally recognized, as yours? Standing up to invaders is not the same as going out and attacking others. True, there were vigilianty groups but unlike the Arabs Isreal made a point of arresting and imprisoning people who broke the law reguardless of which side they were on. The Arabs still refuse to arrest their terrorist groups.

Most of the civilians who fled there villages did so out of lack of food and fear of getting caught in the cross fire between the various armies. The U.N. made sure everyone knew were the refugee camps were and that there was food, shelter, and medical suppies there. When the cease fire was signed the issue of repatriation was broached but Isreal said the Arab refugees would only be allowed to return if the Arab states signed a Peace agreement. The Arab states refused saying they would "drive the Jews into the sea" so the refugees stayed in the camps. 54 years later they are still in the camps; part of the reason is Isreal's refusual to let them return without a peace agreement but how many of those 54 years is the result of Arabs refusing to make peace?

I say again this is not a simple situation and anyone who claims other wise is a fool or a liar.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Funny, I don't recall any African American suicide bombers.

If we hadn't given them civil rights, maybe we would have had some. We did the right thing and gave in while it was still relatively non-violent. Israel waited a bit too long.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Israel and the Arab states all launched an invasion of the Arab-designated section of Palestine. Israel and Jordan, in fact, had an agreement to partition Palestine.

Who said alt.history is not a legible source of information?

After the initial truce, Israel resumed hostilities four times,

Two times.

The limit of Arab agression against the Israeli state fighting was an aborted attack by Syria and one Egyptian column thrust towards Tel Aviv (the other Egyptian column heading towards the Jordanians to try and stop them from annexing all of Arab Palestine themselves.

do you actually want me to scan the real fighting from actual history books?

I can if you really like me too.

It is not pretty much agreed that the Arab states were going to attack Israel, unless you mean the debate is only among supporters of Israel. The US, at the time, did not believe that the Arabs were going to attack, and the Israelis came to the US a month before the war looking for permission to start a war.

It wasn't a month but rather 2 weeks IIRC.
They wanted to start a defensive war, just as what they did.

The Egyptian agression didn't start nowhere.

Israel was making war noises at Syria.

Define war noises.

Israel did think of attacking Syria, as it did. That's because the famous Golan hieghts were used as terror launching grounds.

Imagine that - Syrian armies used to fire from the Golan hieghts at Israelis living in the Galillie.

But your alt.history story omits that, doesn't it?

Egypt had a defence pact with Syria, and moved forces to the boder to get Israel to back down.

And live peacefully with Syrian shells falling in the Galilie. Good offer

Jordan also had a defense pact with Egypt, and when Egypt was attacked, they held to the agreements. But Israel started the war.

Actually no.
Jordan didn't really want to enter the war, but Egypt conviced Jordan they were winning. So Jordan began by firinf several shells on Israel, to which Israel responded.

Given that just about everyone except the US and Israel recongize that the PLO had followed the 1981 Cease-fire agreement with Israel, your comment about guerillas attacking Israel repeated does not hold water.

Was an Israeli ambassador killed by pure air then?

This was a blatent attack by Israel to destroy the PLO, which was gaining legitimacy by adhering to the cease-fire.

ROFL

Legitimacy?

The organization which tore lebanon appart by inciting violence between muslims and christians, is legitimate in your eyes?