israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Muslim thought does not make that separation between history and current times.
For them, 100 years ago is just like now. Heck, they keep comparing it to the crusaders which are very real and current in their eyes.

I'm not defending them, especially their leaders. There's guilty parties on both sides. Look at those clips if you want to see some guilty Jews. I know they aren't all like that either.

One person on this thread said that the difference between Jews and Palistinians is that Palestinians kill civilians. They obviously don't realize that both sides use terrorism against civilians. They are both just as bad in my eyes.

[Sirotnikov]

One person on this thread said that the difference between Jews and Palistinians is that Palestinians kill civilians. They obviously don't realize that both sides use terrorism against civilians. They are both just as bad in my eyes.

While I certainly agree that there are Israeli soliers who get a power-rush out of treating palestinians bad, and some even like to abuse them, I would certainly not call this terrorism, as it is not representative of Israeli intentions.

And with regards to the official Israeli tactics, I think that all of them are legitimate for the situation. I have no problem with using assassinations, border checks, covert arrests etc.

I do feel really bad about the economic pressure on Gaza, because I see people there suffering. But I think it is legitimate because I know that any money that gets there is spent on paying sallaries to Hamas combatants.

[Arrian]

Actually, IIRC the distinction drawn was more subtle than that, Kid. The other poster (shrapnel) said that the Palestinians (Hamas, et al) intentionally target civilians as their primary strategy. That's not the same as arguing that the Pals kill civilians but Israelis don't. In fact, his post specifically notes that Israel has killed plenty of Palestinian civilians.

Now, having gotten the other poster's claim right, you can argue about whether or not:

1) Palestinian terror tactics are justified (moral)
2) they are intelligent (working)
3) they are really substantively different than Israeli tactics/policies

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Proof that fox news is your only source for information.

Actually the only time I watch FOX is if the O'reilly factor is on. Most of the actual news I hear is from CNN. I've never heard any news agency, liberal or not, accuse Israel of intentionally targeting civilians, but I've heard every news agency claim Palestinians do. It's no secret Kid. Even the Palestinian terroist organizations admit everytime they blow up a civilian target. They blow up a target, Israel goes after the terrorists, but sometimes a civilian gets caught in the crossfire, yet the terrorists say Israel did it on purpose, and you're the only idiot that believes them.

If you don't live by the principles of peace you can never have peace no matter how many enemies you annihilate.

QFT! Welcome to the world of Islamic terrorism.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, IIRC the distinction drawn was more subtle than that, Kid. The other poster (shrapnel) said that the Palestinians (Hamas, et al) intentionally target civilians as their primary strategy. That's not the same as arguing that the Pals kill civilians but Israelis don't. In fact, his post specifically notes that Israel has killed plenty of Palestinian civilians.

Now, having gotten the other poster's claim right, you can argue about whether or not:

1) Palestinian terror tactics are justified (moral)
2) they are intelligent (working)
3) they are really substantively different than Israeli tactics/policies

-Arrian

Thanks Arrian!

[Sirotnikov]

at teh arrian

[Arrian]

I try.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

1) Unjustified
2) Not working (look at the Palestinian situation)
3) True... However...

The Israeli politics of "the end justifies the means" are no less morally appaling than what the palestinian terrorists are doing. Accepting a certain degree of civilian casualties when you want to take out a specific target is or should never be justified.

[Kuciwalker]

... of course the ends justify the means.

[Sirotnikov]

Accepting a certain degree of civilian casualties when you want to take out a specific target is or should never be justified.

Of course it is.
It is even legal under the Geneva convention, which says that when a civilian designated area is used for military planning, it loses its special protection and becomes a legitimate target.

[Shrapnel12]

I think every country in the world accepts some civilian casualties. Ideally it shouldn't be acceptable which is why some of the more moral countries try to develop more accurate weapons. Realistically however, how do you prevent 100% of the casualties? The only alternative is to refuse to use your military and just roll over for anyone who wants to push you around.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
... of course the ends justify the means.

Would this also be the case if one of your kids would get run over by a police car in a high speed chase ?

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Of course it is.
It is even legal under the Geneva convention, which says that when a civilian designated area is used for military planning, it loses its special protection and becomes a legitimate target.

Don't let the terrorists know that. They might just file the paperwork and become freedom fighters...

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I think every country in the world accepts some civilian casualties. Ideally it shouldn't be acceptable which is why some of the more moral countries try to develop more accurate weapons. Realistically however, how do you prevent 100% of the casualties? The only alternative is to refuse to use your military and just roll over for anyone who wants to push you around.

Wrong, every country accepts civilian casualties as long as they are not their own.

For the rest, I agree.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap


What right did the League of Nations have to give a European colonial power a "mandate" over the lands of Palestine??????

This is the fundamental problem, that the League of Nations utterly ignored and violated the principle of self-determination for the Arabs people. Why should Arabs ever accept a European colonial entity, which is what Israel essentially was folliwing this decision?

If a Jewish homeland was to be formed on that land, the decision was to be rightfully made by the people living in the lands to become such a homeland, not by foreign imperial rulers in a City 2000 miles away. What business did Lord Balfour have giving Palestine to Zionist leaders? It wasn;t his to give.

I still simply can't understand why this simplest of moral issues is so blatantly ignored.

It's ignored because Jewish racism is ignored, or because people acknowledge it but pretend it is something else. Jews have their racists just like everyone else does, but everyone else doesn't get to hide under the holocaust when they get called on it or have this amazing facility to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is an anti-semite.

Whichever way you look at it, questions of tactics in the Middle East are irrelevant to the larger question of whether Israel is a legitimate entity or not, and I have never seen a justification for Israel that didn't rely on outright lies, conflating legality with morality, or associating people who asked with Hitler or the Nazis. I guess you have to engage in such mental acrobatics if you are a bunch of racist thieves living in an apartheid state.

At least people (well, outside the US) are waking up to the fact that Israel may well have been one of the worst ideas in the history of international diplomacy. Here's hoping we can get rid of that particular cancer as soon as possible. Given that its major enabler is in a downward spiral, that shouldn't be as long as people think.