IDF will occupy Gaza and uproot Hamas

[GePap]

These ME threads never change:

CyberGnu: As much as I fully support the Palestinian struggle- suicide, car, brifcase, and any other type of bombing designed to kill civilians is an unjustifiable act of terror. I think the Palestinians would get much farther with a gahndian, non-violent struggle- that way they would not mck up the moral debate of their situation and give people the chance to call the 'murderes' all and deny them their national rights. I do not see attacks on military targets as terrorist acts.

Siro: 'terrorism' has nothing to do with legitimacy, before 1949 Jewish groups carried out many attacks similar to palestinians ones now- if youu call assasianting gov. officials and attacks vs. personnel terrorist attacks, then many of the leaders of the Jewish state have been terrorist like Arafat.
What i have gathered form you is that you would have made a great member of Jabotinsky's group, a real revisionist if i ever saw one- which is not a ompliment, since Jabotisky did style his group after european fascist organizations- I once saw this pic of Begin in poland in 1935 and he honestly looks like an SS man in the getup he had on, black shirt, high collar, military hat, so on.

An invasion of Gaza might keep the Palestinians quite for a few month, but it won' bring peace, and it will hardly bring victory either.

[CyberGnu]

Al'Kimya, are you sure? She compared the Oslo accord to the Final Solution. How else do you explain that?


Guardian:

The way things are down there right now? Yes, I believe they would if they could.
-Which, in my opinion, means that they're no better.

Well, the moon could be made of cheese, but it isn't. This is a baseless statement. Furthermore, jews lived in islamic countries for 1500 years with significantly less problems than they had in christian countries.

In my book, a person is always morally responsible for the consequences of his own actions, no matter what anybody else does. So, it's no more right for a Palestinian to blow up Israelis than it is for an Israeli to blow up Palestinians.

So the person who throws the switch for the electrical chair, he is a murderer? How about a cop who shoots a hostage taker?

The actions preeding the event must always be taken into account.

The result is the same: People die.

Thus, what you seem to be implying is essentially that some people are less human than others.

*sigh*

No. I haven't even hinted at it. There are no such things as a 'lesser people' or 'lesser race'. There are, however, 'aggressors'. It doesn't matter if their eyes are slanted, their skin white, their penises crooked. Their ACTIONS are all that matters. Jews were the victims of german aggression in 1935-45, Jews are the aggressors in Israel.

Well, I don't.

Care to elaborate? Why is there a difference between the person who shoots the gun and the person who makes the gun? Or the person who supplies the first person with food?

'soldier and civilian' is an antique notion from the middle ages, when war was fought between kings using mercenary armies, referred to as 'the great game'.

However, I do expect him not to go off an blow himself up along with a busload of others, because that's not going to help his people.

But this is a completely different matter. We've been debating whether his actions are morally just, not whether they are effective.

Ah, yes... The Final Solution.

*sigh again*

So you can't tell the difference between the holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima? How about the rape of Nanking and the firebombing of Dresden?

[CyberGnu]

GePap, as I just told Guardian, 'moral' and 'practical' are two very different breeds of a dog.

As for the first, I won't condemn a palestinian for actions taken to oppose the occupation.

As for the second... Actually, up until yesterday I would have agreed with you (as I've done in numerous threads in the past). I would also say that had the palestinians stopped with the suicide bombings a year ago, then maybe they would have been in a better situation than they are today.

But right now the lower frequency of suicide bombings are used as a pre-text for MORE aggression. You've read Siro's post: 'We hurt them in Jenin and the bombings lessened, now we are going to hurt them even more in Gaza'. If the bombings stop now, the threat to invade will be claimed as teh reason. If the invasion occur and the bombings stop, the invasion will be claimed.

Maybe they have to continue, at least for a period after a gaza invasion, just to prove that violence begets more violence.

Or maybe stopping now would finally make international opinion strong enough to do something? Possibly, but I doubt it.

Right now, I just don't know what I think is the best way...

[Ramo]

No.

But I do follow the news. And when there is an absolute closure - there are usually almost no terrorist acts.

1. Even if things like closure and curfew did reduce terror attacks this substantially, it's only bringing moderate Palestinians into the arms of the Hamas et al. by taking away their liberty, reducing them to unemployment and poverty, etc. It's an incredibly poor long-term strategy for reducing terror.
2. I find this assertion hard to believe given how often Israel has instituted the policy of closure. Are you certain this is a symptom of closure, and not invasion temporarily undermining the Palestinian terror groups?

I know it is a person and he is going to blow up.

How so?

It's like evacuating a whole airport because you have an intelligence source saying that there's a person which is intending to make a terrorist attack.

That's not an apt comparison. Evacuating airports sometimes generally don't mean preventing people from earning a living, nor does it mean treating people like virtual prisoners.

I've seen about a dozen interviews with would be suicide bombers.

Do you have a link?

The one thing they all had in common is that they believed that being a martyr would being them and their family fame and respect, a good after life,

None of them mention lost loved ones? Or oppressive conditions?

and fortune (25,000$ from saddam).

Which is a symptom of the economic conditions they face, with a completely demolished infrastructure and a lack of liberty. It's not everywhere a person is willing to kill himself so his family could have $25,000 (which is considered a "fortune")...

Israel has captured in the operations about 100 suicide bombers and has been bussy making psychological analysis.

The wreckage of family homes and their deportation to Gaza was the solution devised and it is proving itself.

Several terrorists gave them selves up, and several families have gave in thier family members, to avoid the Israeli reprisal.

So Israel destroys the homes of all suicide bombers' famlilies and deports them? And you think this is ok?

I'm not in charge of details. There are methods of transparancy.

Since you support this policy, wouldn't it be prudent to find out these "details?"

come on, that's dodging the issue.

The EU agrees that there must be transparansy.

How am I dodging the issue? The EU is an extremely oppressive organizations when it comes to trade barriers. Why should EU approval of Israel trade barriers possibly mean anything?

Great. You again avoid the issue.

You said that immigration policies make people resort to terror. If it is logical that the pals would resort to terror due to Israel's policy, why shouldn't I over Russian or US policy?

You should've worded it differently.

Because, you probably are relatively well off, and/or your parents haven't had their land stolen by the American or Russian/Soviet governments.

There are tons of job opportunities for my family in America.
Why won't they automatically take me?

Because tthe American government is oppressive. I though we've gone over this before.

Reuniting with families was cancelled after several people used it to get legally into Israel, and then set up bombs.

Which is not an excuse to restrict their freedoms.

That's a misrepresentation of the question.
The question the palestinians were asked was, what do you think is your current strategy.
Over 40% thought that driving jews out was the strategy.

In Israel, maybe 3% would say that the Israeli actions are done with the intention to drive the arabs out.

Link? What's the precise wording? Driving Jews/Arabs out of where?

Well i think i know what you're talking about and it has nothing to do with the Likkud.

I remember what it's called - "transfer." I believe some of Sharon's ministers have supported it. Were they not members of Likkud?

It was a small fringe party, that suggested giving deserters large monetary compensation.

Deserters?

the closest thing is King David hotel, which was a local command, and not a civilian building, and it, together with the press were given a half hour heads up.

The fact that the terrorists "warned" the press doesn't magically make it non-terror.

then you are being silly.

There is nothing undemocratic about immigration policies. Democracy is state based, not international.

I don't think there should be boundaries between states.

Besides, democracy is not taking away authority from people and handing it to the state. That is authoritarianism.

And even in a state, there can't be any real law against private clubs. I'm entitled to pick my friends as I see fit.

No, the state is preventing people from associating with would-be immigrants. That is tyranny. In no way does free immigration mean end of free assocation. You can associate more freely with free immigration than without.

Opressive? yes.

Harmful? assuming they follow instructions (ie stay in curfew) and are not participants in terrorist activity then it shouldn't be harmful, except for accidents which may occur, and always occur in wars.

Again, these people are being harmed in terms of having their liberty taken away from them, and becoming impoverished. Harm is not accomplished only with a gun. And it is in no way a lesser form of harm.

Yes - some were. Tough.

Is that what you'd say to people who lost loved ones through suicide bombing?

I'm talking about martyrdom when you kill yourself together with innocent and defenseless people and go to heaven for that.

Ok, maybe there are few cultures that support this kind of stuff, but they've have had a lot of **** happen to them both from the Israelis as well as other Arab states. Desparation leads to these warped societal views...

Heh, it's based on their own messages. Their media. Their internet sites. The speeches of their leaders. The content of their school books.

You're mentioning elites that have a vested interest in supporting this kind of stuff. That doesn't imply the same is true for the Palestinian people.

First of all, there factually isn't a palestine.

Now, you're avoiding the issue... The map didn't recognize any Palestinian authority in the country. No boundary...

Second, even the likkud maps, show areas A and B.

Likewise, there are many Palestinian maps that show Israel.

Do you have a source on how widespread this practice is? I've been reading that it's overblown...

To the best of my understanding both.
Be it non PLO factions (hamas, jihad)

Well, that's a given...

or even simple people or organizations.

Didn't ~40% of Israelis support transfer not long ago?

Many internet sites say "we are maybe currently fighting over nablus, but we remember haifa and jaffo".

Hell, even Arafat is known to have said that in several speeches.

Again, conquest is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing.

And Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian center for the most part have not argued for more than pre-'67 land...

Look, the only way out I see is the following:

1) the current PA is dismantled and arrested and imprisoned,
2) the hamas and jihad groups are cleared to the root.
3) a new - democratic leadership, with international observers is set up.
4) a whole new government and system of education, finance, labour etc is set up.
5) they are given the territory, but without actual statehood for several years (1 - 2). (what the americans called pre-statehood or something).

How long do you suppose this would take? And while all this happens, how are Israeli policies regarding the issues I pointed out going to change? Not very much, I wager.

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Al'Kimya, are you sure? She compared the Oslo accord to the Final Solution. How else do you explain that?

Well.. by larger perspective I specifically meant things like why the arabs have 20+ votes in the UN and many ethnic groups have none. They play their cards better off course. A few can see their bluff, why can't you?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jaakko


Got a cite for that? That's so outlandish it sounds like some inept propagandist's invention. Then again, many do seem to be ready to believe anything of the evil du jour, whatever it is for them.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/iraq_saddam_mistress020908.html

Whiskey and Torture

Even when relaxing, Saddam's brutal side could come out, she said. According to Lampsos, Saddam loved watching The Godfather, listening to "Strangers in the Night" by Frank Sinatra, or seeing videos of his enemies being tortured. He sometimes donned a cowboy hat, sipped whiskey on the rocks and puffed on a cigar as he watched the torture.

"He was happy, happy, happy," she said of the torture viewing. "Happiest day."

(The entire article is a real eye-opener)

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. Even if things like closure and curfew did reduce terror attacks this substantially, it's only bringing moderate Palestinians into the arms of the Hamas et al. by taking away their liberty, reducing them to unemployment and poverty, etc. It's an incredibly poor long-term strategy for reducing terror.
2. I find this assertion hard to believe given how often Israel has instituted the policy of closure. Are you certain this is a symptom of closure, and not invasion temporarily undermining the Palestinian terror groups?

1. Well the curfews and closures wouldn't need to be taken, if the PA had done what it was brought here to do - organize the country for statehood.
Instead, it created a huge terror hive.

2. Obviously an invasion has higher success ratings, as then the terrorists have to go to the defense. But usually there are no terracts during closures. When there are, it's most usually sleeper cells who got in before.

How so?

I have intelligence telling me that a person is wearing a bomb belt and is headed towards Israel.

That's not an apt comparison. Evacuating airports sometimes generally don't mean preventing people from earning a living, nor does it mean treating people like virtual prisoners.

It is an apt comparison because it's the same thing on a smaller scale.

When I know that a terrorist is about to inflitrate, I close the gates of the country. Furthermore, I create checkpoints within Palestine, hoping to catch him there.

What is never published, is that there are lots and lots of checkpoints and closures inside Israel, especially on high alerts.

When it is known a terrorist has infiltrated, a whole city, be it Tel Aviv or Haifa or Jerusalem is completely filled up with policemen and army on every street corner.

Do you have a link?

I've seen several interviews on TV. Some of them on Israeli stations. Some of them on foreign. Usually Sky News, as CNN gives only short bits and BBC only has interviews with PLO spokespersons.

None of them mention lost loved ones? Or oppressive conditions?

Some did, and some didn't.

They all said that they consider death as a martyr better than life as a palestinian.

This is caused both by negative and positive re-enforcement.

1) Negative reinforcement comes from Israeli anti-terrorist actions, and from poor living conditions inflicted by the corrupt and opressive PA.
2) Positive reinforcement from government, political and religious encitement.

What you're telling me, is demanding Israel to stop it's anti-terrorist actions.

But what happens then?
We stop the actions, so part of the reason goes away. But the PA is still corrupt, and life is still difficult. And the promise of 72 virgins in heaven, and 25,000$ to the family and an immortality as a hero is all too much of a temptation.

So What is my solution?

1) Reform the PA. Relieve opression by 1/3.
2) Remove encitement and monetary rewards. Relieve opression by 1/3.
3) Re-educate against suicide bombing being considered an honor. Remove opression completely.

Which is a symptom of the economic conditions they face, with a completely demolished infrastructure and a lack of liberty. It's not everywhere a person is willing to kill himself so his family could have $25,000 (which is considered a "fortune")...

Obviously the economic conditions do not amount from corruption, or channeling of funds to terrorist groups, instead of to infrastructure and so on.

Most of the new infrastructure in the PA since 93 was built by other countries, including Israel, as a charity.

In joint projects, the PA constantly refused to have transperancy, as the PA part gobbled money to corruption.

So Israel destroys the homes of all suicide bombers' famlilies and deports them? And you think this is ok?

They are accomplices to a crime of massacare, and treason. I think that deporting them is better than putting them in prison.

Since you support this policy, wouldn't it be prudent to find out these "details?"

I don't need to know the details of how financial transparancy works. I know that it will allow monitoring of cash, and will show if money goes to corruption or terror.

You're just nit picking

[q]How am I dodging the issue? The EU is an extremely oppressive organizations when it comes to trade barriers. Why should EU approval of Israel trade barriers possibly mean anything?[/q
when did I say it approved Israel's trade barriers?

The EU joins Israel and the USA in demanding transparancy of PA finances.

And what happenned to all the euros that think the EU is the most wonderful and logical thing ever?

You should've worded it differently.

You're playing semantics.

Because, you probably are relatively well off, and/or your parents haven't had their land stolen by the American or Russian/Soviet governments.

I had property stolen by the germans. I fled russia due to it's opression of Jews (no more than 1 Jew per top university etc.). Instead of *****ing, I came here and started a new life.

Because tthe American government is oppressive. I though we've gone over this before.

No they are not opressive. It's bull****.

The American government is responsible for the American people. Not for me or for anyone else who isn't an American.

Just because you're a universalist humanitarian, doesn't mean that the rest must hold the same views.

Which is not an excuse to restrict their freedoms.

I'm restricting their freedom to come to Israel, just as America and UK is restricting their freedom to come to those respective countries.

Link? What's the precise wording? Driving Jews/Arabs out of where?

I don't have a link. Watched it on the news, including foreign channels.

I remember that around 10% thought the intifada's goal is to protest ariel sharon's visit
40% thought that its goal is the liberation of palestinian territories - > gaining statehood, or better terms for a peace agreement
40-50% though that it's goal is the liberation of all of palestine (scaring jews away).

I remember what it's called - "transfer." I believe some of Sharon's ministers have supported it. Were they not members of Likkud?

Nope. Not Likkud.

And it's illegal to support transfer as in foreceful expultion, so even that party didn't oficially supported it.

What they officially suggested was paying big bucks to those palestinians who leave both israel and the palestinian territories.

The fact that the terrorists "warned" the press doesn't magically make it non-terror.

Sure it does.

If I go and explode and kill you - it's terror.

If I go and say - I'm going to demonstratively explode - you have 15 minutes to get out of my way - It's not terror.

You are confusing terror and guerilla or freedom fighting.

The warning to the press and the occupants of king david, shows that the goal was not the killing of civilians, but rather the destruction of the hotel. A power demonstration.

If the goal was not to kill or mame civilians - it is not objectively terrorist activity.

The brittish can consider it terror and israelis can consider it freedom fighting, but objectively it's partisan resistance.

I don't think there should be boundaries between states.

I don't think people should wear any clothes, unless really cold.

So what?

It doesn't mean that it is right or logical.

Besides, democracy is not taking away authority from people and handing it to the state. That is authoritarianism.

Democracy is centralisting authority in the hands of representatives , since its impossible for a mob to organize itself with no leaders.

And in order to establish peace and law and order, the mob waivers several rights and gives the government extra authority, since the government is an authorative body accepted by all, that everyone can affect.

In any case - if there is no state, there is no democracy.

Democracy exists once there is a government that governs people. To govern people, you need to have certain authorities, and be able to impose limitation to observe peace.

No, the state is preventing people from associating with would-be immigrants. That is tyranny. In no way does free immigration mean end of free assocation. You can associate more freely with free immigration than without.

The state has a contract with the citizens it serves. Its job is to protect and service them. That means assure their safety using police, and immigration laws. That means assure their welfare and economy using economic and immigration laws. That means to assure their culture, by among other things - immigration laws.

Again, these people are being harmed in terms of having their liberty taken away from them, and becoming impoverished. Harm is not accomplished only with a gun. And it is in no way a lesser form of harm.

Their liberty is taken away from them, because they hid among themselves terrorist factions.

If I know that there is a terrorist in a crowd, I will stop the entire crowd, and check them one by one, until I find the terrorist.

If I know that there is a terrorist in an airport - I close the airport and hold the people there, until I can find the terrorist.

Very simple procedures.

You sometimes have to limit liberty on the short term, to protect other liberties or other rights, such as safety.


Why is the police given a lisence to arrest suspects? Does it always get it right? No. But the fact that it stops suspects, eventually leads to removing actual criminals from the streets.

Is that what you'd say to people who lost loved ones through suicide bombing?

What would people who lost loved ones through suicide bombs want from the palestinians? compensation? killing one of them?

compensation is negociable - for both sides.

Ok, maybe there are few cultures that support this kind of stuff, but they've have had a lot of **** happen to them both from the Israelis as well as other Arab states. Desparation leads to these warped societal views...

Why there are cultures that support it that had no relation to Israel or Arab states.

Basically this doesn't necessarily grows from desperation.

If they don't want to live they can kill themselves. but to kill other innocent people, is a choise that is chosen as a war victory tactic.

And I think that it's unjustifiable no matter how it grows.

Basically you're saying that if I'm fighting with someone, and he is desperate to win, then I should lay off, or else he'll use suicide tactics against me - and it'll be my fault.

I disagree with that, since this means that struggles never end. To win a struggle in any direction, one side has to get desperate enough to let go his dream of absolute victory.

What you are saying, is that once you get someone to such desparation, he may use terrorism and it's your fault since you lead him to this.

You're mentioning elites that have a vested interest in supporting this kind of stuff. That doesn't imply the same is true for the Palestinian people.

If the elites have a vested interest in it, how can we support them or allow them to go on?

If almost every palestinian organization supports wiping out Israel, how should we go on with peace talks?

Now, you're avoiding the issue... The map didn't recognize any Palestinian authority in the country. No boundary...

Because there is no real palestinian authority except for areas A and B.

and now it's completely useless, since Oslo is dead, Israel is in an armed conflict with the current body of the PA and chose to remove it's authority, in order to protect itself.

Likewise, there are many Palestinian maps that show Israel.

I've yet to see any use of such maps with all my encounters with palestinian sources, whether directly, or through reported means.

Do you have a source on how widespread this practice is? I've been reading that it's overblown...

Look, every palestinain website I entered shows a map whole of palestine.
Eli has a nice picture demosntrating that all the PA emblembs feature the historical palestine.

To the best of my understanding, the recognition of Israel and acceptance of a state limited to 67 borders, has never even been legally accepted in the palestinian legislative council.

Didn't ~40% of Israelis support transfer not long ago?

That is was a different question.

The questioning is different but you present it as mere "do I support this" vote.

The questioning where almost 40% of Israelis said that transfer is now an option that should no longer be taboo.

But the palestinians haven't been asked if the kicking out of Jews is taboo. The kicking out of Jews is NOT a taboo there.
40% said that they believe that the kicking out of Jews is be the expected end result of this Intifada.

Again, conquest is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing.

Gee, interesting.

What has happened to Jews in every arab country since 1948? Ethnic cleansing and persecution.

What has happened to Jews in Palestine in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1935? Organized mob persecution and Ethnic Cleansing.

Did you know that following the 1921 and 29 massacares, most Jews left their homes in places like the west bank and around the country, and immigrated to the only purely Jewish city - Tel Aviv.

Many of the settlements set up after 1967, are set up in the same places and under the same name, as jewish settlements that existed there in the 1920s and 1930s, and were cleansed during the riots or during the arab invasion of 1948.

So if the Israelis should dismantle the settlements, and thus let go of the land they had prior to 1948, as all of the pro-palestinians ask, the same "tough luck" policy should affect palestinians who lived in lands now called Israel, prior to 1948.

That's my policy for the final agreement. No Right of Return for Pals, no Right of Return for Israelis (= Settlements are dismantled).

And Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian center for the most part have not argued for more than pre-'67 land...

Not correct.

Arafat has mentioned several times in his public speeches the pre 67 land.

Translated interviews with palestinian officials in arab media, talk about 67 land as a first stage, with the goal being 47 land and later the creation of a single palestinian country.

How long do you suppose this would take? And while all this happens, how are Israeli policies regarding the issues I pointed out going to change? Not very much, I wager.

If the policies are actually implemented, there'd be less of a reason to make incursions and closures.

Plus, once such a process will begin roling, a dovish government will be re-elected in Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

With Jews on the defensive the world over, we must ask, “What would Muslim-Arabs do in our situation?” They obviously are much better than Jews at this “keeping your country” game. After all, at the century’s inception Muslim-Arabs had … let’s see here … zero countries. And now they’ve got … um, well the Allies gave them about 19, then dealt a biggie to fanatical Wahahibi sect leader Ibn Saud, who instantly renamed himself King Saud and renamed his sand pile the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after himself, and began wheeler-dealing at oil-barrel. So that made 20. But then the Hashemites demanded one, too, so of course they were given one, too most of Palestine, whose name they immediately discarded and renamed TransJordan, which they later renamed Jordan (perhaps around the same time they renamed Judea and Samaria their “West Bank”). So that made 21. And a few decades later more Muslim-Arabs picked up the option on the discarded Jordanian name “Palestinians”, renamed themselves “Palestinians” (shrewdly conserving “Judeans” and “Samarians” for future options) and terrorized or ethnically cleansed most Christians from the one country the League of Nations had set aside specifically for Christian Arabs (Lebanon, for those who still haven’t done their homework). So that made 22, and then they …. it’s still 22 now?

Frankly I’ve lost count. And all throughout, ever since the 1917 ‘will’ bequeathing Palestine to the Jews, the Muslim-Arabs have continued fighting tooth and nail for every last little bit of the Jewish lands, too. So far they’ve snagged about 80%, and the current tantrums blowing up their kids and threatening to blow our world apart are all to nab about 10% more, so they can leave the Jews with only 10% of the original, the easier to pacman my dear. So, in summation, the “poor, humiliated, colonially repressed” Muslim-Arabs have gone from zero to 22, maybe 23 really great countries in under a century, and leveraged their resources (oil and terror) into considerable covert world threatening power to boot. Good going! They’re on a roll!

By comparison, during that same time, the “expansionist Zionist” Jews, having scrounged almost two thousand years as stateless apartheid Middle Eastern dhimmis and European shlemiels, had a promise in 1917 of their Palestine region (yeah, yeah, same old promised land promised in the Bible). But wait! Before those acquisitive Jews actually got it, 80% was creamed off the top and given to uh … let’s see, who was it given to instead … ah yes, the Muslim-Arabs. Then a few years later half the remaining sliver was offered to … oh, more Muslim-Arabs.

[CyberGnu]

Al'Kimya, OK, granted. But how much good does it do them? Not much. It certainly didn;t help them in 48, did it?

And even if they could get a majority vote for something, the US is always sitting there with a veto...

[Sirotnikov]

Siro: 'terrorism' has nothing to do with legitimacy, before 1949 Jewish groups carried out many attacks similar to palestinians ones now- if youu call assasianting gov. officials and attacks vs. personnel terrorist attacks, then many of the leaders of the Jewish state have been terrorist like Arafat.

I don't recall jewish groups targetting civilians, which in my eyes defines terrorism.

Targetting gov. officials and attacks vs. military is objectively partisan resistance.

The state will call it terrorism, and the partisans will call it freedom fighting.

But this is completely different from slaughtering civilians. civilian slaughter is absolute terrorism.

What i have gathered form you is that you would have made a great member of Jabotinsky's group, a real revisionist if i ever saw one- which is not a ompliment,

Erm, I don't think so.

My entire stance is based on my perception of the enemy. and when the enemy is terror against civilians, you will sometimes use things such as military operations and occupation.

In any case, my goal here is to bring to light stories which the world media fails to cover.

since Jabotisky did style his group after european fascist organizations-

erm... source?

Jabotinsky thought that the arabs will never agree to a compromise, and the only way that compromise can be reached is if Israel at first acts unilaterally and decisively. This will give Israel the status it needs, so that Arabs will agree to compromise.

"only then will the radical groups lose influence and the influence will be held by more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates appear with suggestions about bilateral compromise"
From his article "The Iron Wall" which was quoted in my history book.


He did however believe in being honest about his intentions - a Jewish state in palestine. He did regard the Arabs as a nation.

At the beginning he thought that Israel would be a part of the UK - britain's empire. Later, when it became clear britain was very hesitant about the idea of a jewish state, and preffered the arabs, he decided to rebell against them.

So I don't see anything fascist about him.

I once saw this pic of Begin in poland in 1935 and he honestly looks like an SS man in the getup he had on, black shirt, high collar, military hat, so on.

Riiight.

1) they only had black and white cameras then.
2) they dressed in a wierd way.

If anything,

An invasion of Gaza might keep the Palestinians quite for a few month, but it won' bring peace, and it will hardly bring victory either.

1) no one is seeking immediate victory. victory will come when re-education and reform will come.

2) for the first 2 months it will be not quiet but rather a surge of terror. all the resoures left will be used to avenge.

3) after that, the terrorist activity will be quite low, like it is now in the west bank.

[Sirotnikov]

Let's see, Gnu, where have you ever based any one of these claims?

1. Israel corrupts the entire civilized world
2. Israel bribes politicians
3. Israeli media is government controlled / lious.

The only thing you relied on , on all three counts was your own logic and claims.

The only way in which you relied on the NYT and other newspapers was when you said "I can't find item X in the NYT, thus it must be invented by the Israeli media".

[GeneralTacticus]

Al'Kimya, OK, granted. But how much good does it do them? Not much. It certainly didn;t help them in 48, did it?

No, because most of the Western world voted against them.

And even if they could get a majority vote for something, the US is always sitting there with a veto...

Only in the SC. Besides, I haven't seen you complaining that China has a veto which it will no doubt use if the SC condemns the occupation of Tibet...

[CyberGnu]

1) Take a look at your own opinions. You claim might gives right. This is indeed an example of moral corruption.

2) Not Israel, jewish lobbying in the US. One of the largest special interest groups in the US.

3) Well, where is that Al-Quida training camp that the JP reported? And where is the supposed source they had? They made up a story with the sole purpose os inflaming the situation. I've explained this about 200 times for you by now, so this is your last chance. If you still don't get it, I'll just reply with 'moron'. Saves me a lot of time.

[CyberGnu]

General, has China come up in the discussion? If you wanted my view on China's veto you could just have asked.

I think the whole veto idea was an incredibly bad idea from the beginning. Then again, we did manage to survive the cold war without nuclear exchanges, so maybe there was some point to it, and we are now still paying the interest.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, the moon could be made of cheese, but it isn't. This is a baseless statement.

In my opinion, the person who is oppressing somebody and the person who would if he could are two of a kind. Just because one is not in a position to effectively carry out his wishes, that doesn't make him a better person. No, we can't punish him for something he has not done, and I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm just saying it's not all black and white.

Furthermore, jews lived in islamic countries for 1500 years with significantly less problems than they had in christian countries.

True, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're discussing here.

So the person who throws the switch for the electrical chair, he is a murderer?

My personal opinion? Yes, he is.

How about a cop who shoots a hostage taker?

That's different. Killing is still wrong, but it might be necessary in such a situation. The cop's first and foremost duty is to protect the innocent. To do so, he must - of course - also keep himself alive.

Of course, the best way to handle it would be to successfully negotiate a peaceful surrender or to take down the hostage taker without killing him. However, this might not be possible, and it is the cop's job to evaluate the situation and respond with appropriate action. He is, however, still responsible for his own actions.

The actions preceding the event must always be taken into account.

Should they be taken into account? Yes, of course. Always.
Can they relieve a person of the moral responsibility for his own actions? No, they can't. Ever.

There are no such things as a 'lesser people' or 'lesser race'. There are, however, 'aggressors'. It doesn't matter if their eyes are slanted, their skin white, their penises crooked. Their ACTIONS are all that matters.

I agree. -But then you'll have have to go after the people who's ACTIONS it is you don't like, not just any member of the same people / same race.

Jews are the aggressors in Israel.

No, they're not. Individuals are.
Unless you go after the right individuals, then I'm sorry, but you don't have a case.

Care to elaborate? Why is there a difference between the person who shoots the gun and the person who makes the gun? Or the person who supplies the first person with food?

There is a difference because each person is responsible for his own actions. The person who makes the gun has the moral responsibility for making the gun and putting it into this world, but he is not the one who loads it, aims it and fires it. The person who feeds them both probably also feeds many others... Is a Swedish farmer morally responsible for the actions of any and all Swedes? -And if Norwegians buy some of the food, does that make the Swedish farmer responsible for every Norwegians' actions too?

But this is a completely different matter. We've been debating whether his actions are morally just, not whether they are effective.

True. -And if he goes and blows himself up on a bus full of civilians, then they are neither.

So you can't tell the difference between the holocaust and the bombing of Hiroshima? How about the rape of Nanking and the firebombing of Dresden?

*sigh again*

All right then, since I obviously do need to spell it out:

No.
None of those actions where justified. They were all evil.

Yes, I can see that there is a difference in nature between some of them, but they're still all evil.

What you keep saying is that one evil justifies another.

I don't buy that.