bombus

Calm down please, there's no call for that here.

 

It's interesting to me that you accuse other people of wearing "bias goggles".

 

But at least we agree that Gaza should not be lobbing rockets into Israel, so I give you credit for that. I don't interpret you as supporting terrorism, I interpret you as determinedly opposed to Israeli defense practices regardless of their justifications. Put another way -- pacifism. And I respect that, even if I disagree with it. Peace at all costs is too high a cost, IMO. But you feel differently, fine.

 

Funny how you interpret Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but not the state of Israel. Is the fact that one has a UN approved state the dividing line? I am not a necessarily a pacifist, I just think that Israels actions were WAY over the top for the threat posed by those rockets. As previously said, the British never acted like this in Northern Ireland, despite extreme provocation.

 

 

But you lose me when you say stuff like this:

 

 

 

Why you would think that Israel would want to actually create more militantism is beyond me, and just reeks of nutcase conspiracy theory. The fact that Israel illegally annexed the occupied territories does not make them evil. It just means they don't agree with your pacifist preferences.

 

In the past you have suggested that Israel getting this done before Obama takes office is a nutcase conspiracy theory - despite it being repeated by mainstream news reporters! (I however, don't think Obama will make any changes though, judging by his choice of Chief of Staff)

 

OK, think about this from the other direction. Why on Earth would Israel carry out such actions knowing full well it will simply entrench opinions further? How would such actions possibly make Palestinians less militant? Are Israel's leaders total idiots? Maybe they are, but I doubt it.

 

The more militant Hamas become, the more action Israel can take, until Gaza is a wasteland and the Palestinians flee, like has happened in the past from other former Palestinian areas. No Palestinians - no problem.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hang on a minute, though. What you're talking about is the discussion of where the border goes between the Palestinian territories and the Israeli territories.

 

I'm talking about the Arab Israelis who live *INSIDE* Israel territory. For example, in the Galilee (northern israel) there's no discussion over the "green line", and many Arab villages and cities -- all of which are Israeli citizens.

 

Don't mix arguments.

 

I'm not, you said that Gaza had only been in existence for a short time.

 

The argument about where the border lies is a political one, that goes on and will, hopefully, eventually be solved by talks. You can't claim Israel is segregating all Arabs when that's simply not true. The Arabs that stayed inside Israeli territory have the SAME RIGHTS as any other Israeli citizen, and the live in peace with the jewish and christian inhabitants.

 

Yes that is true. But there were a great many Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the war, who are now outside so-called Israeli territory but without their land etc. - the Palestinian Refugees. They may not wish to be part of Israel as is, but may be willing to be part of a new state.

bumbus, the Israeli Arabs that live inside Israel *are* citizens.

Only those who live in Gaza are not Israeli Citizens, and even that is relatively recent (past 20 years) because they've declared themselves to be a different nation.

That's not true! Check the boundaries here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)

The Israeli side of the Green Line encompasses 78.5% of what was Palestine in 1947.

The majority of Arabs who had inhabited what became the Israeli side of the Line either fled or were expelled during the war.

Here's my interpretation of your posts, Bombus. It's okay if American Indians/Native Americans fire rockets into the United States since the US took their land. The US has no right to protect its citizens since they stole the land to begin with.

 

There comes a time when you have to stop fighting on old angers based on decades past events, and accept what has been done in the interests of progress and forward movement.

Well you'd be wrong. Native Americans are not excluded from the USA and *are* US citizens. Also, as said before, the crimes that stole their land were done when no-one considered the rights of indiginous people, and the colonists did think the Native Americans as somewhat sub-human. This was not the case in 1948, and certainly is not now.

Similarly, I would not support the Welsh firing rockets into England as the Anglo-Saxons stole our land 1500 years ago!

That's fine, it seems to me that your history is a bit misrepresented, as I said before.

 

I don't try to represent Israel as a perfectly peaceful country; this conflict has 2 sides to it. It seems to me, however, that you're doing the extreme opposite of what you're claiming we're doing and claim the Palestinians to be the innocent "little fella" that has every right to kill as many civilians as they want.

 

Your history is innacurate, bombus, as I've said before, the two nations lived on this land for much longer (MUUCH longer) than the past 60 years, and in relative peace.

No they have not. They were not two nations then. They were two religions living within one nation. It is your history that is innaccurate, not mine. Have you have had a lifetime of indoctrination about it?

Historically, Israel has the same right to exist than the Palestinian nation. The difference is that when Israel was declared the Arab nations immediately declared war (1948). However, Israel declared many many times (and acted on it, by leaving Gaza in 2005, by signing the Oslo accords, by appealing to the international community, by offering half of Jerusalem to Arafat, etc etc) that it is interested in a 2 state solution.

No-one had a right to create a Jewish homeland on land that belonged to everyone that lived there - apart from the right of might, which is indeed what prevailed.

If this discussion is to go anywhere, we need to stop with extreme remarks, and try to see where the facts lie - on both sides.

OK, Agreed. But our standpoints on the historical background are opposite, so we may have the same facts, but interpret them in different ways.

But that's just it, bombus - whenever anyone other than you "bets" or "guesses" you make a (just!) remark that it's lacking proof. But you seem to keep doing it yourself. Be consistent with what you're asking others to do, and supply the proof you expect others to supply as well.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't mind people making bets or guesses etc., it's when they don't think through the logic of what they are syaing. Making guesses is fine, but make them educated ones!

I'm not that sure the rockets are going to stop, but Israel declared it's going to leave Gaza anyways.

Actually they didn't.

I don't think anyone thought they could stop *ALL* rockets with any sort of action short of a massive carpet-bombing of gaza (which, as you know, was not done). What *was* achieved is a severe blow to Hamas smuggling infrastructure and their tunnels.

What about arms trading to Israel, is that going to stop ?- or can they keep re-arming themselves? A little one-sided isn't it?

This is far from returning to 'square one'; now in a cease fire the chances of them smuggling weapons and explosives in, and the chances of having actual talks is higher.

I think they have never been further away. So many people have lost loved ones, the Palestinians will be even more militant - which was probably Israel's objective.

Yeah, well, we can all make extreme-remarks that drive people into a disgust-emotional state (did you read the article I posted a few posts ago?). That doesn't mean it's valid, or historically true, or getting the discussion anywhere other than the emotional gutter.

If you're on about Dresden, it WAS a disgusting event - a war crime in my opinion. The British should be ashamed of Dresden.

Politics is hard to be objective in, but there *are* ways to try. Historical honesty is one. Avoiding low-blows is another.

I think my take on history is honest.

Extreme tactics can be done in both sides of the discussion. And yet, what good will this do to this discussion..?

I often find myself at odds with forum members. I am often accused of being extreme. The truth is, I just question received opinion - these unshakeable myths that people seem to accept and then base their perceptions on. I am actually not particularly extreme - I just say what I feel needs to be said.

Merged post follows:

The thing with a war that has been going on for SOOO long is - that there is no simple peaceful solution that will please both sides. It's very sad. Some people will take the Israeli side and others the Arabs. It is very difficault to discuss without arguing. If it was that simple then I guess it wouldn't have turned into a nasty war in the first place.

Well, I think a one-state solution would go a long way! It would be a win-win solution for everyone, Jew and Palestinian alike, united in a single all-inclusive, non-secular state.

Aaaaaand here come the rockets, right on cue.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLI526807._CH_.2400

 

I disagree with that article, though -- Israel is definitely not "back at square one". Now the issue is getting attention. Not that it will make much difference, I suppose, but if the Palestinian people want peace and prosperity, they're going to have to stand up and reject the culture of militant response.

Yes, but Israel can continue with its militant response, i.e., occupying Palestinian territories, allowing illegal expansion to occur, blockading Gaza, buildling illegal walls across Palestinian land etc.

It seems to me that people here are characterizing Israel as a peaceful country that just wants to stop the rockets, and are completely forgetting the entire context in which this conflict exists. Israel have been provocoteurs for the past 50 odd years. I can't expect people from the USA to remove their bias goggles though, as you get force fed anti-arab propaganda by CNN, Fox, etc. It's like you can't see the other side of the coin.

Israel is an out of control rogue state that can do exactly what it likes, including bombing the UN. No-one does anything about it, not one sanction put in place, because they have the US and all other western nations by the balls. I only wish they weren't a nuclear armed state.

Yet more murderous acts here:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-gaza-doctors-grief,0,7475024.story

Merged post follows:

I was talking about the casulties from the white phospherous.

Yes, so was I. I bet very few of the WP casualties were from similar actions.

Merged post follows:

Breaking news - Israel Declares Unilateral Gaza Cease-Fire.

 

Should that put to rest the idea that Israel has entered Gaza solely to control Gaza?

 

((ah, Pangloss, you're ahead of me.. )) in any case, I think the "magic word" here is "Unilateral".

Why? Israel will continue to occupy Gaza. The rockets are not going to stop now anyway - with over 1000 Palestinians dead and many more injured. It's a meaningless statement. Their still bombing Gaza.

Merged post follows:

Yeah and the Pope called Gaza a "concentration camp". Both men should know better than to use such a crass characterization, but hey, never let it be said that with great power comes great wisdom.

And he'd have been right. I suspect they are far wiser people than anyone on this forum.

My incredulity is because you appear to be suggesting that all the civilian casualties are due to this, which I would strongly suggest is nonsense.

I think it could have a profound and beneficial effect on humans to come face to face with another kind of human.

Might I suggest a debate class, bombus? You're not winning anyone over with posts like that. This is just a nickels worth of free advise, so do with it what you will.

I was lost for words.

********!

Merged post follows:

The news last night suggested that the white phosphorous was used only to provide a smoke screen for troop advancement. They pop out a few flares that give off white smoke for ages to give cover to advancing troops. It suggested that injuries caused buy these happened in an attempt to stamp out the flares. So - these 'civilians' that were supposedly burnt up by white phospherous attacks were actually burnt when they were trying to sabotage the Isreali smoke screens by trying to stamp out the flares.

What utter nonsense. Listen to yourself!

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But bascule you've been posting one-sided conspiracy theories since you started in on this subject, and I have to say it's getting a little old.

 

oh... nothing...

 

See Sir Gerald Kaufman (British Jewish MP) in the House of Commons condemn Israel as behaving like Nazis here:

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21781.htm

Oookay then. I think that says it all.

Err... did no-one tell you?

Merged post follows:

Which, the HUGE bibliography, or the fact there's "JEW-something" in the link?

 

Have you *READ* them?

No, but I have read other sources of historical information on the subject.

Again you're picking and choosing what you're comfortable answering. How comfortable for you, bombus.

But perhaps I should not be so surprised from someone who seems to pick and choose (and create) his history, too.

 

Here, in the spirit of a decent science forums, here are some historical REFERENCES (shriek!) for you to look at (even though you probably won't):

Bibliography http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/bibhist.html

“The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a

Well I'd hardly call these independent sources!

Unlike you, I don't see a victim and a perpatrator. I see two grownups. It takes two for peace, and one for war. Israel seems prepared for both, while Hamas seems prepared for the one - war.

The trouble is that the very existance of Israel provokes the whole conflict. The analogy is a bit like me coming to sleep in your spare room, then you come home one day to find that I have claimed your house, changed the locks and banished you to the garden shed, and then when you throw a brick at the window everyone blames you for being violent.

Do you think Israel should be dissolved? If Hamas is determined to fire missiles into Israel until Israel ceases to exist, and Israel has no moral options to stop the missiles in your mind - what other solution can there be?

Yes I do. I think it's a failed and outdated model that is more hassle than it's worth. It creates never ending problems that end up with 911, and with Israeli Jews being more hated than ever. I think it does more harm than good for everyone.

Bonbus, stop ignoring half my claims.

 

How far ago would you like to go? There are evidence of the jewish nation IN ISRAEL for 2500 years in digs and archeological finds. The jewish nation was sent away from Israel (by force, driven out, exiled) during the Babylonian empire (presumably today's "Iraqis"). So one can also claim that the Jews*came back* to their country.

Yes and most of those Jews were still there 2500 later, many of them having converted to Islam or Christianity many centuries ago.

And yet it is, as I said, utterly irrelevant.

It is not!

You can't keep having double standards, bombus. If you claim Israe shouldnt' exist because you picked an arbitrary date in history to claim wohoever was there to have a "CLAIM ON THE LAND", then you need to change the entire world map now, because every country has the same "problem" in its history and creation.

No double standards by me. I have not picked an arbitrary date - I picked 14th may 1948 as the day the Palestinians lost a great deal of their homeland. You can argue that they lost it fair and square to a superior military force - but we are not supposed to act like that in the 20th/21st Centuries as we are supposed to be a little more civilised.

On top of that, arguing about who is where when has no bearing on the current situation. I find it slightly disturbing that while we were talking about what might be options for peace you, again, come to the thread, ignore the claims made by everyone other than those you can answer, and incite towards a "no solution" argument.

It is TOTALLY relevent to the current situation! Why do you think Hamas hate Israel so much. The siezure of Palestinian land took place in living memory!

What is it, exactly, do you expect Israel to do right now, roll over and die? I think not.

Well, basically YES, but it depends exactly what one means by that. It would mean the dissolving of the current state of Israel and it merging with the Palestinian lands to form one new united country. Palestinians who have lost their farms etc would be given it back and the new state could look forward to a peaceful future with everyone having equal rights and opportunities.

P.S: I wonder if during the current (and previous) war in Iraq you demanded that the United States be dissembled and given back to the native americans, because it has no right one the land. Do you seriously find this a relevant claim?

The difference is that the colonization of the Americas was a long slow process that started a very long time ago and done by people who regarded the Indians as savages and rather less than human. It was an abysmal crime but done when no-one considered things like the rights of indiginous people. That is NOT the same as the situation in modern day (post 1945) Israel/Palestine.

I guess your blood lines are all indigenous to that area, otherwise you might hate yourself.

Well, anyone can come and live here and call themselves Welsh if they like. However, if a group came here then siezed the majority of the country by force and called it Israel and forced me off my land to live in a wasteland I'd probably want to fight them until they were destroyed.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis of history.

Its not my analysis it's what happened. The problems between Jews and 'Arabs' before then was largely as a result of British, US and UN meddling (as ever) from the early 1900's onwards.

What I am meaning is that the country of Israel was effectively seized from the Palestinian majority. One could argue that it was seized from the British Empire, but they had no rights to the land either.

Merged post follows:

Where, exactly, does Israel say "it's all theirs" is beyond me, but perhaps when one only reads half information and ignores the other half, that's the impression that sticks.

I mean the modern state of Israel. It once 'belonged' to the Palestinians under the 'protection' of the British Empire.

There had been Jews living side by side with Arabs in Palestine for millennia. A problem started when the UN came up with the 'homeland for the Jews' idea. If Palestine had remained a single state for Jews and Palestinians all with equal rights and opportunities all would have been fine. It all went wrong on 14th May 1948 when the new Israeli State declared independence. That's when the Palestinians and Arabs got angry - and understandably so! It should never have happened. There will never be peace in the region, and it will continue to affect us all. Very sad, but all Israel's fault really - it ain't only their country!

Merged post follows:

This unresolved, never ending conflict always gets me wondering about the moral dilemma: Is it better to string out combat across generations, incrementally piling up dead? Or would it be better to "have it out" in one big fight? Peace is not an option, obviously.

 

Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for Israel to just wipe out the opposition and nuke every country that militarily objects to it. Sounds like warmongering insanity, but is there no moral disgust in indefinite historical conflicts that slowly kill off humans decade after decade? It's like we expect Israel to behave as if there is a viable pretense for peace one day.

Err...this sounds like the Final Solution argument I referred to earlier? Are you saying that is what Israel really wants?

Stealing? How did the Palestinians earn that land? How do countries claim land, Bombus? Who decides how much land to claim? Couldn't the first humans to conjure up silly notions of ownership just have claimed the earth as their land? Aren't we all stealing?

 

No matter what people claim land, there's always people before them. Like I said, borders are negotiable by force and very rarely, if at all, by any philosophical justice. The earth's resources are for us to divide and nature chose competition as the method. Humans have thus far complied gloriously with nature's rules.

 

Sorry, but land and borders are one of those subjects that nobody is really in any position to judge in terms of right and wrong - we're all living on somebody else's home.

Aw, c'mon. The creation of modern Israel is hardly the same as say the Europeans colonizing the Americas, or Australia, or Paleolithic man colonizing Europe after the Ice Age. This occurred in modern times when there were international laws, ideas (if not laws) concerning human rights etc. The ancestors of the modern Palestinians had always lived there - many probably being the decendents of converted Jews.

I am not living on anyone else's home. Us Welsh go back to the Paleolithic...

Merged post follows:

I wish Israel good luck with stopping terrorism... I don't know any example in the history of mankind where any power has actually succeeded in stopping terrorism (which does not mean that the terrorists are right).

 

Also, the amount of energy you have to spend to stop 1 man from firing 1 rocket is mindboggling... (And our society seems willing to pay for it).

hear hear!

Well maybe pictures speak a thousand words so why not see this 2 min video and tell me that Israelis actions are proportionate and justified.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21673.htm

Merged post follows:

Israel's action is not pre-emptive, it's self-defense.

I don't think Israel being a nuclear armed state with modern weapons is really at threat from a bunch of desperates with crappy missiles.

I don't have issue with the larger point you're making, but I think you undermined it with such an absolutist position as to say that it's always wrong if any civilians are killed whatsoever. That position never allows defense. But your point that we need to behave like adults and bring parties to the table is fine, I agree with that.

The word proportionate is often used. Israels response is not proportionate to the threat.

But you're more persuasive (at least with me) when you set aside the conspiracy theories and the war-is-always-wrong absolutism, IMO.

I don't really think conspiracy theories are needed here!

Merged post follows:

P.S: As someone who has family in the region, and friends on "the other side", I am TRULY hoping that by 2080 (and hopefully before that) the Palestinians would have their own *BLOSSOMING, SUCCESSFUL* state alongside Israel - in Peace...

How can they with Israel having ceased most of the fertile lands and 4/5ths of the water supplies? Anyway, Israel was created by force - stealing land that already belonged to the Palestinians.

Merged post follows:

So in addition to denying any justification for any military actions (by Israel), you also deny the possibility that they'll accomplish anything? Makes you wonder why Israel even has a military!

Well presumably to fend off Arab States - not kill Palestinians.

Well I'm using the term 'bad guys' to keep things simple. Obviously the picture is far from simple, and it's not possible to draw a line and say one would accept x civilian casualties for y military targets. I can't say when day ends and night begins but I know the difference between the two...

But when looked at holistically, what on Earth do Israel think this will achieve? It will not stop the missiles, it will kill innocents - including children (who I mention as they have no power of voting so some of the excuses for killing civilians expressed don't apply), and it will increase the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and others. It is a totally pointless excercise that will have no long-term beneficial effect for anyone. Israel should have been adult about the situation, not acting like some bad tempered child in a tantrum.

right... so now acting like an adult is letting your civilians get killed by rocket attacks?

Well very few actually get killed or injured compared to the hundreds of Palestinians that get killed by this sort of 'defensive action'. Are Palestinians less human than Israelis? I know a story about a man from Germany with a little moustache that used arguments like that..

Merged post follows:

If I was living in Gaza, I would get a brain and get the hell out of there. Israel even gave them an extra three hours today to do just that. Anyone who stays is stupid.

What? They are not allowed to leave! Israel won't let them leave - and hasn't done for many years.

You realize that gives Hamas a clear pass to do whatever the hell it wants... like launching rockets from civilian infrastructure and claiming the moral high ground when Israel retaliates.

Well of course. These are the problems that liberal democracies have to deal with - we have to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. Otherwise just imagine what a morally derelict world we'd live in. Londonderry would have been carpet-bombed, as would Catalonia, the Basque region, Texas

Someone has to play the adult and that someone should be the liberal democratic state.

Of course you can.

 

Accepting civilian losses to get to the bad guys when they're being deliberately placed in the way is a political choice, not an ethical dilemma.

Says you. I disagree.

Lets not beat about the bush here. If you want to get at one or two bad guys but are willing to kill tens of civilians including small children to do so, you are a bad guy too.

Most of the 'bad guys' being targetted are not even actively fighting at the time, so there is no clear and present danger being stopped here. It is mostly pre-emptive. Surely you'd agree that killing children as a direct consequence of pre-emptive action is unethical?

That's a fair point, but this still ignores my contention that Hamas is drawing Israeli firepower to it's own citizens deliberately. Obviously this is still a humanitarian crises from the Palestinian perspective, but what's the better solution? Should Israel simply ignore the rocket attacks? The government would never stay in power that way and, a more radical one, would probably get elected.

Well, in shooting the rule is that if you aint got a clear view of your target, dont shoot! Yes those darn terrorists are sneaky, but of course they are! That doesn't mean that civilians should pay the price for the sneakiness of terrorists. One can't kill innocent civilians just because they are in the way. That is unethical and makes one as bad as the terrorists.