Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

US to increase Israel's military aid

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Nah... it's all to do with protecting the haul of the biggest theft of the 20th century. If only its rightful owners would piss off and stop making such as outrageous demands as having their property returned to them there would be no need for such military aid packets.

    Maybe the Jews should then reclaim everything that was stolen from them during the Holocaust.

    Your ideals though are similar to that of Mugabe though - returning land in Zimbabwe to the families of those who owned it hundreds of years earlier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I don't see why this is necessary. Neither is it helpful - what message is this giving out to Palestinians? Both sides are suffering in this seemingly never-ending conflict. Why the USA assists one side so heavily, it beggars belief.

    http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp446.htm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe the Jews should then reclaim everything that was stolen from them during the Holocaust.

    Your ideals though are similar to that of Mugabe though - returning land in Zimbabwe to the families of those who owned it hundreds of years earlier.

    as far as I know Israel has been paid huge sums as compensation for theft and human rights abuses which Jewish people can claim if they can prove they were victims of the holocaust. Which from one story I read seems more difficult than it should be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe the Jews should then reclaim everything that was stolen from them during the Holocaust.
    They have- and as Shyboy has just said they have received huge compensation for it. Nor that it is very relevant to this issue.
    Your ideals though are similar to that of Mugabe though - returning land in Zimbabwe to the families of those who owned it hundreds of years earlier.
    WTF are you on about?

    I am talking about the disgraceful land grabs of 1967. Illegal as hell as recognisged by virtually the entire world, and not exactly hundreds of years ago.

    Even the creation of Israel, which by many accounts can also be considered a disgraceful theft (though not officially), goes back only to 1948.

    If Israel wants to live in a world where it is not constantly threatened, it should perhaps stop its 40-year old illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its never ending Crimes Against Humanity against an entire people.

    Just a thought, like.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Jews were thrown out of both England and France in the middle-ages. English and French Christians also went on "crusades" murdering Jews and Muslims living other countries. They killed many Jews living in Germany as well as Muslims living in Turkey as well as the area that was once known as "Palestine".

    Stop talknig about what I didn't say - I didn't say there were not thrown out - I said that wasn't thier homeland. I asked where you proposed they came from? They travelled there? Yes they did.
    So if you believe even the new testament where did Jesus and his disciples live? Who do you think that land belonged to before Roman invasion?

    They lived wherever they wanted to, and were quite well spread over the world, in fact. They did not have a homeland.
    Learn your history. Britain was invaded by the Romans under Augustus. Queen Boadicea, who was the rightful queen of the people who lived there before tried unsuccessfully to defend it against them. Subsequently the land was also invaded by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings and Normans. Christianity spread around Europe due to the influence of the Roman Emperor known as Constantine and then it was forced conversion (convert or be killed).

    And at the time, it was a Christian country, was it not? Oh yes, so it was. Stop being a Politician and arguining the issues not put forward. I know this History, but it does not change the fact that, at the time, Britain was al rgely Christian country.
    And what about Spain? During the middle ages there were two big empires that went around conquering Europe - the Byzantine (Christian) empire and the Ottoman (Islamic) empire. And because Jews didn't form and empire and go around conquering countries you think they don't deserve a homeland now?

    They didn't need a homeland, they never have one. If your homeland was indeed, Stolen, then have it back. BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE ONE. And so are not entitled to one.

    I am sorry, this argument I could use to say "I don't, and have never owned a private jet. Therefore give me one now."
    History proves otherwise, in particular the Holocaust and years leading up to it. However that is not all, and not any homeland will do. The area that was given to the Jews is well defined. Note however that there is nothing at all in Jewish doctrine about conquering any other extra territories.

    There is nothing in Jewish doctrine about conquering other lands, true. There was nothing in the Bible about crusades, and nothing in the Koran about blowing people up. Religion is twisted and manipulated for the goals of the elite.

    How does the Holocaust prove that the Jewish people need Israel? Do tell. I don't see it having stopped, in any way, thwe Hatred of the Jewish people by the worrying number of brainwashed fanatics in this world. Indeed, there seem to be more. Israel has not in any way helped this, indeed, it has made it worse. If they had, perhaps, a good government without expansionist tendancies, this might help. That and if they stopped possesing illegal nuclear weapons.
    They seemed pretty much hated before. So much so that all the countries in Eastern Europe were only too happy to hand over their Jews to the Gestapo. There were also conflicts within Palestine with Jews who tried to settle there (even without it being considered a Jewish nation) and Jews were poorly treated in Arabic countries.

    ... And Israel helped this, did it? Nope, Eastern Europe is full of Skinhead neo-Nazis, and the Arabs hate them even more. I wasn't saying the Jews have not had a raw deal in History, they have. I feel sorry for them. But Israel has not helped this, it has not resolved it, and it has made teh situation worse.

    So tell me, if the Israeli government one day sent tanks to your town, chucked everyone there, you included out, and gave you nothing back... but said it was for the security of Israel... you would let them, and not fight back, would you?

    Or if the Western Government took your town... and chucked you out... you'd not be angry, because they were settling someone else there... ?
    This is only from a political point of view. The Jewish holy-sites are based in Israel. The holiest site is that of the Temple Mount. The holiest site to which Jews may actually go is the Western Wall.

    Now, Christians are free to go to the Vatican City and Muslims are free to go to Mecca, so why should Jews not be free to go to the Western Wall?

    And Muslim holy sites, and Christian Holy sites are there too. Why are the Muslims not free to go there now, when they lived there for Thousands of years happily? The Jews are not the only people in this world, you know, with Holy sites. I didn't say they should not be allowed there. I did say, why should they have thier own nation, which they have never had before. And if they survived without one before... why exactally, do they need one?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    They have- and as Shyboy has just said they have received huge compensation for it. Nor that it is very relevant to this issue.

    WTF are you on about?

    I am talking about the disgraceful land grabs of 1967. Illegal as hell as recognisged by virtually the entire world, and not exactly hundreds of years ago.
    The land was not taken from the people who inhabited it. Those people continued to own the land. The land just changed its sovereignty. Much land changed its sovereignty during the 20th century, quite often as a result of a war.

    Note that only the Golan Heights actually remains as a part of that land which has not been either returned or offered in return to its original state, i.e. Syria, but it would be offered in exchange for a peace treaty, which Syria have yet to negotiate.

    Settlements on these territories were on unowned / unoccupied areas or they were on land that was legitimately purchased for money. By the way, a state normally has the right to forced purchase, eg if they wish to rebuild the area on which you live, either to modernise or even to build a by-pass through it.
    Even the creation of Israel, which by many accounts can also be considered a disgraceful theft (though not officially), goes back only to 1948.
    How? It was voted by United Nations. And if Israel what about Pakistan?
    What about the various Balkan states?
    If Israel wants to live in a world where it is not constantly threatened, it should perhaps stop its 40-year old illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its never ending Crimes Against Humanity against an entire people.

    Just a thought, like.
    Between 1948 and 1967 there was no such land as Palestine. The West Bank was part of Jordan, the Golan Heights was part of Syria and Gaza was part of Egypt. Jordan did not request for the West Bank to be returned to them as part of the peace treaty of 1993. Egypt did regain control of Sinai in 1978 but did not wish to have Gaza returned to them.

    Palestinians in the West Bank would be given a state (they already have voting rights for their own authority and in many ways that are an autonomy) if a peace treaty could be arranged. The acts that Israel does sometimes perform, i.e. against Jenin is part of warfare against this region that refuses to make peace.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    returning land in Zimbabwe to the families of those who owned it hundreds of years earlier.


    Same as thing as the creation of Israel really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The land was not taken from the people who inhabited it. Those people continued to own the land. The land just changed its sovereignty. Much land changed its sovereignty during the 20th century, quite often as a result of a war.
    Rubbish.

    I wonder if you would be so understanding if, say, the Danish came over and took 78% of the landmass of Britain.
    Note that only the Golan Heights actually remains as a part of that land which has not been either returned or offered in return to its original state, i.e. Syria, but it would be offered in exchange for a peace treaty, which Syria have yet to negotiate.
    Try again. Various Arab states and groups, including Syria and the Palestinians, have at least twice in the last few years offered a full and permanent peace to Israel as well as recognition of its right to exist in exchange for Israel returning the stolen land back to 1967 borders. Israel's response? No thanks.
    How? It was voted by United Nations. And if Israel what about Pakistan?
    What about the various Balkan states?
    What about them?
    Between 1948 and 1967 there was no such land as Palestine. The West Bank was part of Jordan, the Golan Heights was part of Syria and Gaza was part of Egypt. Jordan did not request for the West Bank to be returned to them as part of the peace treaty of 1993. Egypt did regain control of Sinai in 1978 but did not wish to have Gaza returned to them.
    There was a Palestine for a long time before that, wasn't there?

    The point is moot. The Palestinians have been the main and overwhelming majority of occupants and owners of Palestine for thousands of years. The land belongs to them. End of.
    Palestinians in the West Bank would be given a state (they already have voting rights for their own authority and in many ways that are an autonomy) if a peace treaty could be arranged. The acts that Israel does sometimes perform, i.e. against Jenin is part of warfare against this region that refuses to make peace.
    Do you mean land appropriation, illegal building of thousands of tumour-like settlements, collective punishment, the building of ghettoes and Apartheid-Nazi Walls splitting towns in half and further stealing land that isn't Israel's to take, uprooting of vines out of pure malice, deliberate destruction of thousands of homes (on occasion without bothering to warn the occupants to get out first), imprisonment without charge or reason of thousands of young Palestinian men for up to several years at a time, water and power restrictions, torture, abuse and thousands of counts of murder of unarmed civilians, including nearly a thousand children?

    Funny way of performing warfare that is, isn't it? Funny how the region "refuses to make peace" while genocide is being perpetrated against them. These silly towelheads, don't know what they want really... :rolleyes:


    How low can you stoop in trying to justify the unjustifiable, one wonders...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Stop talknig about what I didn't say - I didn't say there were not thrown out - I said that wasn't thier homeland. I asked where you proposed they came from? They travelled there? Yes they did.

    They lived wherever they wanted to, and were quite well spread over the world, in fact. They did not have a homeland.
    Ok I will admit that they did conquer the land - under Joshua about, 3,300 years ago. From that point it was the homeland for over 1,000 years until the conquest by Babylon. When the Persian empire gained control of the area they allowed nations that had been conquered by Babylon to return to their own states with a state of autonomy, thus Jews returned to Israel to reinhabit. They remained there around 450 years before the invasion of Rome, although some did remain in other parts of the Persian empire.

    Note that the Jewish nation was actually a split of Judah and Israel, and Israel had gone into exile a couple of generations earlier. That was the first time that Jews (Israelites) became "scattered".

    And at the time, it was a Christian country, was it not? Oh yes, so it was. Stop being a Politician and arguining the issues not put forward. I know this History, but it does not change the fact that, at the time, Britain was al rgely Christian country.
    Under Boadicea? No, she was not a Christian. Christianity didn't exist yet, although Jesus had lived and died by the time the Romans invaded Britain.
    In any case Christianity wasn't spread around Europe until much later, and hadn't yet reached Britain.
    They didn't need a homeland, they never have one. If your homeland was indeed, Stolen, then have it back. BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE ONE. And so are not entitled to one.
    But they did have one. And they have one now so effectively according to your logic it can't now be stolen away.
    I am sorry, this argument I could use to say "I don't, and have never owned a private jet. Therefore give me one now."
    This sounds like nonsense to me now.
    There is nothing in Jewish doctrine about conquering other lands, true. There was nothing in the Bible about crusades, and nothing in the Koran about blowing people up. Religion is twisted and manipulated for the goals of the elite.
    "Religion" should be about recognition of the sovereignity of a divinity over the world, thus it should actually control the power of human leaders who have to still observe the divine command.

    State leaders should never be religious leaders, as they are bound to twist religion to mean what they want it to mean.
    How does the Holocaust prove that the Jewish people need Israel? Do tell. I don't see it having stopped, in any way, thwe Hatred of the Jewish people by the worrying number of brainwashed fanatics in this world. Indeed, there seem to be more. Israel has not in any way helped this, indeed, it has made it worse. If they had, perhaps, a good government without expansionist tendancies, this might help. That and if they stopped possesing illegal nuclear weapons.
    Because the Jewish people were not protected by the law of the states in which they lived? These were people who lived by the laws of the land and paid taxes etc and yet were not protected by them when needed.
    ... And Israel helped this, did it? Nope, Eastern Europe is full of Skinhead neo-Nazis, and the Arabs hate them even more. I wasn't saying the Jews have not had a raw deal in History, they have. I feel sorry for them. But Israel has not helped this, it has not resolved it, and it has made teh situation worse.
    Maybe it has not resolved it but shows it is necessary.
    So tell me, if the Israeli government one day sent tanks to your town, chucked everyone there, you included out, and gave you nothing back... but said it was for the security of Israel... you would let them, and not fight back, would you?

    Or if the Western Government took your town... and chucked you out... you'd not be angry, because they were settling someone else there... ?
    Some Muslims were displaced during the 1948 war, it is true, because they did not want to live in a Jewish state so they moved. I am not 100% sure they were given "nothing".

    In 1967, they continued to remain in the land that was captured but were under a different sovereignity.

    And so I live now in England. If we were told that there was no longer an England but we were all part of a United States of Europe and under the law of such, that would be similar. Or perhaps if London became under French rule.
    And Muslim holy sites, and Christian Holy sites are there too. Why are the Muslims not free to go there now, when they lived there for Thousands of years happily? The Jews are not the only people in this world, you know, with Holy sites. I didn't say they should not be allowed there. I did say, why should they have thier own nation, which they have never had before. And if they survived without one before... why exactally, do they need one?

    They did not live there for thousands of years happily, they were the main inhabitants for a couple of hundred years, perhaps, having successfully conquered it from whoever was there before.

    And they are allowed to go to them. Maybe they will have to go through security checks. Maybe they will need to apply for a visa but they will be allowed to go.

    Why isn't anyone allowed to just go and live anywhere in the world? Why are there any immigration laws at all? Do you think that there shouldn't be any anywhere?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Rubbish.

    I wonder if you would be so understanding if, say, the Danish came over and took 78% of the landmass of Britain.
    They did. They were called Vikings. You may well be descended from one.
    Try again. Various Arab states and groups, including Syria and the Palestinians, have at least twice in the last few years offered a full and permanent peace to Israel as well as recognition of its right to exist in exchange for Israel returning the stolen land back to 1967 borders. Israel's response? No thanks.
    Yasser Arafat rejected the peace treaty offered by Ehud Barak in 1999. Israel has also offered the Golan Heights back to Syria in return for peace but no such deal has been agreed by Syria.
    There was a Palestine for a long time before that, wasn't there?
    Ruled by the British as part of their empire, before then by Turkey. There were Jewish inhabitants in Palestine before 1948, and there would have been more had they actually been allowed in. In any case when Britain dismantled their empire there was an agreement to a partition of Palestine into Israel and Jordan.
    The point is moot. The Palestinians have been the main and overwhelming majority of occupants and owners of Palestine for thousands of years. The land belongs to them. End of.
    And the USA belongs to the Native Americans and Australia to the Aborigines. Does that mean you should now chuck all the Americans and Australians out?

    Your "thousands of years" is also rather inaccurate.
    Do you mean land appropriation, illegal building of thousands of tumour-like settlements, collective punishment, the building of ghettoes and Apartheid-Nazi Walls splitting towns in half and further stealing land that isn't Israel's to take, uprooting of vines out of pure malice, deliberate destruction of thousands of homes (on occasion without bothering to warn the occupants to get out first), imprisonment without charge or reason of thousands of young Palestinian men for up to several years at a time, water and power restrictions, torture, abuse and thousands of counts of murder of unarmed civilians, including nearly a thousand children?
    Nobody said war is pleasant but you also over-exaggerate. Between 1993 and the intifada in 2000 it wasn't like that. Yes, Israel were building settlements (perhaps a bad strategy) but it was on uninhabited areas. The land is not that densely populated, you know.
    Funny way of performing warfare that is, isn't it? Funny how the region "refuses to make peace" while genocide is being perpetrated against them. These silly towelheads, don't know what they want really... :rolleyes:
    There is no genocide. There was no massacre at Jenin.

    I do agree that innocent civilians have been killed in the crossfire. That is an unfortunate consequence of war. As I have said, war is not pleasant.
    How low can you stoop in trying to justify the unjustifiable, one wonders...
    Because you have to look at the recent history of what has happened when Israel has conceded land. When they pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza. Militant groups seized the opportunity to use the land to launch rockets into Israel.

    So look, they gave Gaza back to the Palestinians and were they happy? You bet they weren't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They did. They were called Vikings. You may well be descended from one.
    What if they did it tomorrow?

    Yasser Arafat rejected the peace treaty offered by Ehud Barak in 1999. Israel has also offered the Golan Heights back to Syria in return for peace but no such deal has been agreed by Syria.
    So why did Israel reject two such peace deals in the last 4 years?

    Ruled by the British as part of their empire, before then by Turkey. There were Jewish inhabitants in Palestine before 1948, and there would have been more had they actually been allowed in. In any case when Britain dismantled their empire there was an agreement to a partition of Palestine into Israel and Jordan.
    Point remains the lands belongs to the Palestinians.
    And the USA belongs to the Native Americans and Australia to the Aborigines. Does that mean you should now chuck all the Americans and Australians out?
    Oh dear... nice analogy you got there... :D
    Nobody said war is pleasant but you also over-exaggerate. Between 1993 and the intifada in 2000 it wasn't like that. Yes, Israel were building settlements (perhaps a bad strategy) but it was on uninhabited areas. The land is not that densely populated, you know.
    That makes it alright then :rolleyes:
    There is no genocide. There was no massacre at Jenin.
    Oh, I wasn't talking about Jenin. Jenin was the tip of a very big iceberg.
    I do agree that innocent civilians have been killed in the crossfire. That is an unfortunate consequence of war. As I have said, war is not pleasant.
    Nice attempt to try to avoid the question.

    Taking careful aim and shooting dead eight-year old children going to school is murder. I don't care if it's all the World's Wars to date rolled into once conflict. Murder is murder. And of that, Israel is guilty to a far greater degree than the Palestinians.
    Because you have to look at the recent history of what has happened when Israel has conceded land. When they pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza. Militant groups seized the opportunity to use the land to launch rockets into Israel.
    'Conceded' eh? Try 'returned'.

    Incidentally, for every rocket launched into Israel there have been- previously- countless more artillery shells, missiles, bombs and incursions from the IDF.
    So look, they gave Gaza back to the Palestinians and were they happy? You bet they weren't.
    When people have been put through to decades of the most inimaginable hardship, conditions and porverty things tend to get screwed up a bit.

    If Israel really gave a shit about the wellbeing of the Palestinians it would stop bombing and blockading Gaza, allowing it to use its own airport, allowing it to export and trade with others freely, and freezing its assets.

    But to Israel, Gaza is far more important as civil war-torn hellhole. It supports its claims that the Palestians are a bunch of semi-savages that cannot be trusted to have their own country anyway.

    How gullible can we be...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the end of the day if they want peace there has to be compromise. Israel does have to give up the occupied territories and it possibly needs to compensate those who fled.

    At the same time there does seem to be this weird belief amongst certain posters that Israelies are the only actor and that everyone else is reacting against them. They conviently ignore why Israel is a fortress state and why it doesn't trust its neighbours.

    Israel isn't going to give up its security without guarantees that they'll be safe. Given the UN's past record (when the Dutch ran away screaming in Bosnia for example) it would be naive of them to rely on the UN to protect them. And as about one third of the total Jewish population was murdered between 1933 and 1945 (actaully mainly between 1942 and 1945) you can see why they might be a bit nervous about putting themselves in that situation again.

    If you seriously want peace (and I'm not convinced that many of israel's opponents do) Arab states need to recognise Israel without condition. That doesn't mean they need to accept the occupied territories, Southern Ireland managed perfectly normal relations with the UK for years whilst still claiming Northern Ireland. It also means that they can't continue to send over rockets, suicide bombers etc and to take actions against those that do. And they need to stop state sponsored antui-semitism in their schools.

    Amazingly by recognising Israel and working to normalise relations Egypt got rewards in returned territory and an ability to talk through problems rather than degenerating into tit for tat border battles...
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Given the UN's past record (when the Dutch ran away screaming in Bosnia for example) it would be naive of them to rely on the UN to protect them.

    If I were the UN I would refuse to protect Israel after it quite deliberatley murdered UN peacekeepers in the Lebanon. And Israel needs to compromise, yes, but they have shown little of being willing to do so. They need to be prepared to realise conquering land in this day and age just sin't acceptable, nor is murdering civilians. It just pisses everyone off and makes more unrest. People don't sit back and take shit anymore, just because one nation is more powerful.

    Also, Earl Purple, I can't be arsed to respond properly, I am busy packing for Wacken, but your arguments are shite IMHO. If this thread is still going when I get back, I shall repsond.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    If I were the UN I would refuse to protect Israel after it quite deliberatley murdered UN peacekeepers in the Lebanon..

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6236188.stm

    Does that apply to all those who kill peacekeepers or just if the killers are Jews

    And Israel needs to compromise, yes, but they have shown little of being willing to do so.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/26/newsid_2806000/2806245.stm

    Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of a compromise peace
    They need to be prepared to realise conquering land in this day and age just sin't acceptable, nor is murdering civilians. It just pisses everyone off and makes more unrest. People don't sit back and take shit anymore, just because one nation is more powerful.

    They're not the only players in the game. I wouldn't say its as simple as they're only killing civilians because the other side is doing so, but there is a viscous circle.

    It also seems ironic that you say people don't sit back and take shit anymore and then condem Israel for not sitting back and taking shit...
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6236188.stm

    Does that apply to all those who kill peacekeepers or just if the killers are Jews

    Well, I think the difference here is between the STATE doing so, and TERRORISTS. I think there is a difference, don't you?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/26/newsid_2806000/2806245.stm

    Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of a compromise peace

    A bit like if Nazi Germany had tried declaring peace by offering back only Southern France from its territories it conquered. Either you give it all back, or it's a pointless gesture. So wat of the people who Settled there? They were fully aware they were settling on stolen land, shouldn't have done it if they were not happy with having to fuck off when the tables turned.
    They're not the only players in the game. I wouldn't say its as simple as they're only killing civilians because the other side is doing so, but there is a viscous circle.

    It also seems ironic that you say people don't sit back and take shit anymore and then condem Israel for not sitting back and taking shit...

    Of course they are not the only players in the game, we have to deal with the terrorists too. However Israel, instead of dealing with Terrorism in a sensible matter, decided to illegally occupy land, build a fuck-off wall across this land (aka build a wall in someone else's land) and then kill some civilians. Yep, that'll sure cheer everyone up! Random artillery into civilian areas is bound to break the moral of the terrorists, not get them more support!

    You have to break this image the terrorist perpetrate of Israel as an evil murdering regeime. Killing civilians and stealing land honestly won't do anything except reinforce this image.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that the only way to achieve peace is at least to start with agreed ceasefire. I have also agreed that you cannot shoot away your enemies as all you are likely to do is get yourself more. This applies to both sides too.

    It is also important that the Palestinians teach their children peace, i.e. they don't teach them it is heroic to blow themselves up.

    The security fence is a necessary evil to enforce ceasefire until peace can be achieved. It would also be nice if we could all just go to the airport and get on a plane without having to go through security checks because we know nobody is going to try to take a bomb on.

    What exactly would you call dealing with terrorism in a sensible matter. How would you deal with them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    by not acting like terrorists in return

    just a thought
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the USA and Britain in Iraq? Did they act like terrorists?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's that got to do with it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How do you define terror?

    Is it:

    1. Acts of violence committed against individuals or property targetted because of nationality or belonging to a group that you wish to attack as a whole.

    2. Does it make any difference whether these are civilian targets

    3. Does it make any difference if the main target is a military target but civilians are certain to get damaged in the process, either because they are killed or injured or their properties are damaged.

    4. What if the main target is military and civilian casualty is not a certainty but happens anyway

    5. What if there is a declared state of war at the time and no declared ceasefire.

    6. If a nation as such is not in a state of war but there are militant groups who themselves have declared war is it possible to be at war with the militant group? Is this militant group a "terrorist" group? Is that the definition of terrorism?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Israel are certainly guilty of targetting civilians.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are guilty of (3) which means they hit military targets even when they know there are civilians in the presence. A militant leader who subscribes suicide bombers can be considered a military target.

    My personal opinion is hitting a civilian area because there are militants hiding out there is generally wrong and Israel have been guilty of doing that, so I do disagree with Israel on that. Americans have been guilty of doing the same.

    You have to ask yourself - would you still hit the target if the civilians there were your own people. If the answer to that is no, you shouldn't hit it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are guilty of (3) which means they hit military targets even when they know there are civilians in the presence. A militant leader who subscribes suicide bombers can be considered a military target.

    My personal opinion is hitting a civilian area because there are militants hiding out there is generally wrong and Israel have been guilty of doing that, so I do disagree with Israel on that. Americans have been guilty of doing the same.

    You have to ask yourself - would you still hit the target if the civilians there were your own people. If the answer to that is no, you shouldn't hit it.

    Everyone's done it - unless you're fighting in a desert* there's going to be civilians around and caught in the crossfire.

    * and a pretty unpopulated one at that - civilians were killed during El Alamein for example
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Israel has deliberately and on countless occasions murdered civilians. Unless little girls shot in the head on a day when no hostilities were taking place count as enemy combatants.

    Or people executed inside their homes during Israeli incursions.

    Not to mention the 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed during the obliteration of entire areas of Beirut last year.

    And before anyone says anything, flattening entire neighbourhoods has nothing to do with 'defending yourself' and everything with murderous revenge of innocent people.

    As terrorists go, the government of Israel and its armed forces are second to none. Let's be absolutely clear about that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are guilty of (3) which means they hit military targets even when they know there are civilians in the presence. A militant leader who subscribes suicide bombers can be considered a military target.

    My personal opinion is hitting a civilian area because there are militants hiding out there is generally wrong and Israel have been guilty of doing that, so I do disagree with Israel on that. Americans have been guilty of doing the same.

    You have to ask yourself - would you still hit the target if the civilians there were your own people. If the answer to that is no, you shouldn't hit it.

    You think the only civillian casaulties in that conflict are as a result of the IDF killing them while attacking military bases?

    Ah bless. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I will agree to some extent about Lebanon. Although they did drop leaflets warning of the bombings so that the civilians could, in theory, escape, it was clear to me that it was the wrong policy that could never win any friends, was likely to make more enemies and that not all the civilians would be able to escape anyway, plus I think it was obviously clear that there were many remaining at the time the bombs were dropped.

    As for the little girls shot in the head, such is not Israeli policy. I do not know if these incidents were carried out by individuals - unfortunately in any war there are situations where soldiers take unilateral action. Even if these were humane individuals before the start of conflict, war can do horrible things to people's morality.

    The policy against such soldiers is court martial and jail - in fact a soldier who shot that Britain who went to help Palestinians indeed went to court and I think he was even found guilty.

    Of course in any trial like this, to be found guilty requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt so there will be cases where the offender is acquitted and justice is not seen to be done.

    You cannot call Britain or the USA state of terror because innocent Iraqis have been shot (and this has included young children too).

    Also note that young children are often used as suicide bombers, including girls. Age here does not necessarily denote innocence or guilt. Shooting Jean Charles De Menezes was equally wrong because he was innocent - the fact he was male and in his 20s does not make it any less bad. He has still never got justice (nobody stood trial for it) but still you cannot call Britain a terrorist state because of this shooting.

    There are also, of course, many Israelis who disagree with government or army policy, particularly the war in Lebanon last year.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You cannot call Britain or the USA state of terror because innocent Iraqis have been shot (and this has included young children too).
    Though you could call them state terrorists because of the illegal bombing, invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation and the overthrowing of its regime.[/QUOTE]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Israel has deliberately and on countless occasions murdered civilians. Unless little girls shot in the head on a day when no hostilities were taking place count as enemy combatants.

    Or people executed inside their homes during Israeli incursions.

    Not to mention the 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed during the obliteration of entire areas of Beirut last year.

    And before anyone says anything, flattening entire neighbourhoods has nothing to do with 'defending yourself' and everything with murderous revenge of innocent people.

    As terrorists go, the government of Israel and its armed forces are second to none. Let's be absolutely clear about that.

    Well if none includes the Russian in Cheyna, Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Bosnia etc, etc I'd agree.

    And what about bombs on buses or clubs? Are these wrong? or is it one side should be criticised and the other gets a pat on the back and others painted as a resurgence of the Mongol Hordes...

    Well founded criticism of Israel gets swallowed up by hyperbole and this weird belief that Israel is uniquely evil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the 34-day war which broke out on 12 July, after Hizbullah's military wing crossed into Israel and attacked an Israeli patrol, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two others. Israeli forces carried out air and artillery bombardments, killing nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, including hundreds of children. Israeli forces also destroyed tens of thousands of homes and commercial properties, mostly in south Lebanon and in the suburbs of Beirut; and targeted and damaged main roads and bridges throughout the country. Hizbullah missiles fired into Israel caused the deaths of 43 civilians and damaged hundreds of buildings.

    In the course of the conflict Israeli forces committed serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes. In particular, Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale. Israeli forces also appear to have carried out direct attacks on civilian infrastructure intended to inflict a form of collective punishment on Lebanon's people, in order to induce them and the Lebanese government to turn against Hizbullah, as well as to cause harm to Hizbullah's military capability.

    At least six Lebanese nationals, most of them known or suspected Hizbullah fighters, remained detained in Israeli prisons at the end of the year, while Hizbullah did not disclose the fate or condition of the two Israeli soldiers it had captured. Indirect negotiations for a prisoner exchange were reportedly ongoing between the two sides. Israel suspended access by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to the prisoners it held after Hizbullah refused to grant such access to the two Israeli soldiers.

    In the final days of the war, after the terms of the ceasefire had been agreed, Israeli forces launched hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs containing up to 4 million bomblets into south Lebanon. The million or so unexploded bomblets that were left continued to kill and maim civilians long after the end of the war. Some 200 people, including tens of children, had been killed or injured by these bomblets and newly laid mines by the end of the year. Despite repeated requests, Israel did not provide detailed maps of the exact locations where its forces launched cluster bombs to the UN bodies mandated to clear unexploded ordnance.

    http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Israel-and-the-Occupied-Territories
Sign In or Register to comment.