Facts about the war in Israel


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The same protection? Each subset of religious/ethnic identity gets it's own heavily armed nation carved out of land someone else lived on?
Nope - just the right to be treated as a human being, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as the guy standing next to him.

Oh. Fine then, we agree on that.

I was discussing the need of Jews to have a state of their own for protection. Particularly why they need to have one, but not every other persecuted minority.

That's a slippery slope counter point.

I think Europe, Russia have pretty routinely shown they are not places that protect Jews.

It's like a woman living with a man who beats her, sure, he's been nice the past couple months, but would you blame her for wanting her own place after suffering decades of abuse? The last 60 years have been better, but 900 years of repression, murder and genocide are going to have an impact.

The Arab Spring hasn't been kind to Jews either. There have been Jewish communities in Tunisia since the Roman empire. They are now experiencing a heightening level of threats and intimidation and are quickly leaving. It's been in decline since Israel was remade, but it's accelerating. This has been happening across the Arab region.

There isn't exactly a lot of people stepping up to protect them. One of the Popes did, don't remember which one exactly, it was the same time they were being kicked out of Spain. They were allowed to live in a single neighborhood. The next Pope built a wall around it.

So, feel free to argue your "not every group can have their own country", but it sounds like a shit argument to me that only deals with vague generalities instead of what has actually happened to these people.


Well, then, how has the Israeli state made Tunisian Jews more safe? They get shat on in Tunis and then move to Israel and get hit by Gaza rockets?


Eh, what the heck.

Norman Finkelstein on RT


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The same protection? Each subset of religious/ethnic identity gets it's own heavily armed nation carved out of land someone else lived on?
Nope - just the right to be treated as a human being, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as the guy standing next to him.

Oh. Fine then, we agree on that.

I was discussing the need of Jews to have a state of their own for protection. Particularly why they need to have one, but not every other persecuted minority.

That's a slippery slope counter point.

I think Europe, Russia have pretty routinely shown they are not places that protect Jews.

It's like a woman living with a man who beats her, sure, he's been nice the past couple months, but would you blame her for wanting her own place after suffering decades of abuse? The last 60 years have been better, but 900 years of repression, murder and genocide are going to have an impact.

The Arab Spring hasn't been kind to Jews either. There have been Jewish communities in Tunisia since the Roman empire. They are now experiencing a heightening level of threats and intimidation and are quickly leaving. It's been in decline since Israel was remade, but it's accelerating. This has been happening across the Arab region.

There isn't exactly a lot of people stepping up to protect them. One of the Popes did, don't remember which one exactly, it was the same time they were being kicked out of Spain. They were allowed to live in a single neighborhood. The next Pope built a wall around it.

So, feel free to argue your "not every group can have their own country", but it sounds like a s~&& argument to me that only deals with vague generalities instead of what has actually happened to these people.

If you go back more than about 100 years or so, damn near every minority got the raw end of the deal. Except those that had the power to get on top and abuse others. As BNW said, humans suck and it sucks to be human. It hasn't been that long since we agreed even in principle that minorities shouldn't be abused and we're still not good at living up to it.

If you look at anti-Semitism particularly, it looks like Jews get a particularly raw deal. There are probably more incidents against Jews than against any other group, but is that evidence that Jews really had it worse or just that they have had a very long and widespread history?
I don't think you can talk about the treatment of Jews anywhere in the Middle East in modern time without looking squarely at Israel. Is the treatment of Jews in Tunisia just because of generic anti-Semitism or is it intensified because of perceptions of Israel's treatment of Palestinians? Is Israel a safe refuge or does it provoke more hatred?

And I don't want to go beyond vague generalities because I don't want to go further into comparisons of victimization.


I agree, it'd be great if all minorities could be protected. I think every situation is different, so the solution for the Jewish people might not be the right solution for Aluites, or Hmong. Just because another minority is being persecuted or might be persecuted does not mean that the Jews don't deserve to protect themselves.

I fully agree that Israel is part of the problem. Not because of their existence, but their use of violence. Violence can never solve the problem of violence, I agree.

It's a complex issue, and yes Israel has done some really awful things. But I also see a severe lack of empathy for how they got to where they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Which country in the world would stand by when that happens? Just today, Tel Aviv was threatened by missiles [...]. I want you to imagine the U.S, for example, allowing a terrorist organization that can threaten New York (and even directly shoots at it) to exist."

I can understand your point of view being part of it but whatever is HAMAS you have to deal with them. You never have to make peace with your friends but with your enemies!
Your enemies means people you were fighting against, people you might still hate and wish dead but people you've to speak with... if you want to make peace.

Israel considers itself an exception on Earth, that's a pity...
French and Germans made peace. The German who burned a church where they gathered an entire village, the French who killed a million German soldiers during the first World War. Nonetheless they manage to make peace.

The USA dropped two atomic bombs over large cities in Japan, the same Japanese who spilled more Americans blood than HAMAS will ever toward Israel.
Nonetheless they managed to make peace.

In former Yougoslavia, Serbs and Bosnians slaughtered each others going as far as collecting the ears of the fallen as trophy or selling to each other the bodies of dead soldiers to be buried (speaking only of what I witnessed there).
Nonetheless they managed to make peace.

So why it's so different for Israel?? Why it's the only place on Earth where it's not possible?
The answer is very simple, because Israel is not interested in making peace.
Stupid?? I invite all of you to check carefully how many dead this "war" will make on each side, carefully.
I can already predict the final count between a hundred and a thousand for the Palestinians and between five and ten for Israelians.
Now ask yourself a question, even if Israel is a small country how many wars it can handle loosing ten to twenty soldiers in each of them?? Yes, a lot!
On the other hand Israel is getting a lot of support for being "at war", money and technology but also a strong advantage over its neighbors. Not to mention the guaranty of keeping its hands on all the settlements and Jerusalem.

So Israel will not make peace. Not as long as it'll be much more powerful than its adversaries. Not as long as "war" will cost Israel a few and bring a lot!
If you believe in God, just be thankful you were not born a Palestinian...


So you're saying all the attempted peace agreements and ceasefires are lies?

...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.

* = And by that I mean it's insulting to every person on both sides who wants peace instead of war!!


Mark Sweetman wrote:
Taking a short divergence on the pepperoni issue - you can get halal and kosher pepperoni (they are typically made of beef or chicken).

You still can't mix those with dairy!


Icyshadow wrote:

Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,

but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.

Poland between XIII and XVI/XVII century. It changed, regretfully.

(warning: there are serious differneces between Polish version and English version, including the number of points in the statute - maybe I try to find some sources later and correct one or the other version).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:


...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.

WOLF! WOLF!

Oh.. wait..

Come on. You are really overplaying that card. Not everything that disagrees with your view can be dismissed as propaganda. Not everything said about Israel is antisemitism.


He was claiming that every ceasefire and attempted peace agreement in the area was basically a lie.

How can I not feel insulted here? Also, stop accusing me of playing a card that's not there in this situation.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:


...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.

WOLF! WOLF!

Oh.. wait..

Come on. You are really overplaying that card. Not everything that disagrees with your view can be dismissed as propaganda. Not everything said about Israel is antisemitism.

Actually I must say that Angstspawn post went a bit too far implying sole responsibility for the lack of peaceful solution on Israel. While Icyshadow certainly were overreacting to some of the previous posts that one was offensive and unfair.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
He was claiming that every ceasefire and attempted peace agreement in the area was basically a lie.

If you think he's wrong then SHOW him. Reason with him, explain your point of view. He's laid out why he thinks the peace talks are disingenuous. If you have nothing else to throw but ad homs then you need to rethink your argument if not your position.

And i think there's some truth to what he's saying. Its how the US wound up being... well, the US. Offer a peace treaty, take a little land. Wait for the next flare up in conflicts, beat them militarily, take a little more. Force another move into an unustainable area, wait for the flare up... wash rinse repeat. Time, hindsight, and distance have made that view more obvious, even if someone would have been denounced for it while it was occuring.

Quote:
How can I not feel insulted here?

Unless you're the one writing the peace treaty or high in the Isreali government he's not insulting you. He thinks you're incorrect, not lying. You (along with the rest of the planet) are being lied to along with the Palestinians. "I think a politician is lying for their own advantage" is neither an insult nor is it exactly confined to the criticism of Israeli politicians.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.

Yes, we call those people racists.

It's slightly more complicated than that of course, people in Europe had long hundreds of years to develop a very specific kind of society, and one of the outcomes of that society is very low birth rate. Suddenly their lands are flooded (this process took much less than a decade) with people from a VERY diffrent kind of culture, a culture that in many places dosen't coincide very smoothly with it's European counterpart. Those people come in great numbers and breed fast. Europeans have a right to feel intimidated that their way of life might be coming to an end.

Writing as a European, I don't recognise this at all.

It is worth noting that the people who use words like 'flood' are definitely not in the mainstream.

After the Brievik massacre many Norwegians actually argued that the very idea of 'ethnic purity' was un-Norwegian.

In the UK we have had immigration from poor countries as long as we have been rich and powerful, a lot longer than ten years.


Icyshadow wrote:

So you're saying all the attempted peace agreements and ceasefires are lies?

...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.

* = And by that I mean it's insulting to every person on both sides who wants peace instead of war!!

I partially agree with him.

I would say that those who have chosen to abstain from violence were genuine, but those who brokered cease fires, fully willing to recommit to violence weren't truly trying for peace.

I think both sides have been failed to truly seek peace. Individuals might have.

For example, Lord Snows take on a lot of this shows me he is partially interested in peace, but he's more interested in winning. Because violence is something you use when you want to win.


Some further reference information:
Demographics on Palestine - of note is the mass immigration after WWI, and especially the paradigm shift in 1947-48.
Historical Demographics - going back a little further to 1st century AD.

A list of the multitude of peace proposals - if you can make decent sense of that, then you're a better reader than I.

Lastly - the points of the second proposal of Folke Bernadotte - the UN mediator in 1948 who was assassinated by Lehi:

  • Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
  • A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
  • The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
  • Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
  • The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
  • The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
  • International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.

It's interesting how little has changed from 1948 to the present day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.

Yes, we call those people racists.

It's slightly more complicated than that of course, people in Europe had long hundreds of years to develop a very specific kind of society, and one of the outcomes of that society is very low birth rate. Suddenly their lands are flooded (this process took much less than a decade) with people from a VERY diffrent kind of culture, a culture that in many places dosen't coincide very smoothly with it's European counterpart. Those people come in great numbers and breed fast. Europeans have a right to feel intimidated that their way of life might be coming to an end.

Writing as a European, I don't recognise this at all.

It is worth noting that the people who use words like 'flood' are definitely not in the mainstream.

After the Brievik massacre many Norwegians actually argued that the very idea of 'ethnic purity' was un-Norwegian.

In the UK we have had immigration from poor countries as long as we have been rich and powerful, a lot longer than ten years.

So much agree!

First, Islam is not a new thing in Europe at all. Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania for example have had large muslim populations for centuries.

Second, the supposed "overrun" by muslims is not going to happen. About 6% of Europeans are muslims. By 2030 the estimated percentage is... 8%! Not to mention that the fertility gap is projected to narrow in the coming years, so the growth will be even slower after that.

Source

Third, in the end, does it matter if the muslim population in Europe grows a lot? The majority of Europeans are christians, yet the society is largely secular. Who says that muslims do not understand separation of church and state? Especially the second- and third generation muslims, who will be educated by the largely secular system? My uneducated guess would be that by 2030 half of Europe's muslims are drinking beer.

Most of the "intimidation" that some of the europeans feel is plain old xenophobia fuelled by ignorance. Two things that I consider much more dangerous to the european way of life than islam.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old Mammoth wrote:
Most of the "intimidation" that some of the europeans feel is plain old xenophobia fuelled by ignorance. Two things that I consider much more dangerous to the european way of life than islam.

Fueled by certain elements stoking the hatred for political advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Xenophobia over illegal immigration is a sad topic in many countries - including where I was born - Australia. But the truth is that the media and politicians blow hot air onto the coals and whip it into a much bigger issue than it actually is.

Australian Statistics:
Boat People - 4,565 arrived in 2011
Humanitarian Visas given by Australia - 13,799 issued in 2010-11
Migration program - 168,685 places given in 2010-11

So it's clear that despite the mass hysteria in parts of Australia and the media / politicians on the threat of boat people... Our migration program actually willingly and gladly accepts 37 times as many people per year in legally than those that arrive illegally.


Icyshadow wrote:

He was claiming that every ceasefire and attempted peace agreement in the area was basically a lie.

How can I not feel insulted here? Also, stop accusing me of playing a card that's not there in this situation.

Drama queen... No, not every ceasefire was lie and definitely it's not only Israel fault as, as far as I know, you must be at least two to fight...

Now, Icyshadow or Drejk, ask yourself what's the real threat for Israel. Rockets?? Of all the victims of terrorism in Israel the percentage of those killed by rockets is probably the least.

So, hopefully, there won't be much civilian casualties in Israel, not that much property damages either, no risk of territorial loss, no risk of high military casualties, no high risk of military material damage. So even if one dead is too much, Israel can't really be hurt.
The real cost of this "war" for Israel is the cost of the bombs dropped on Palestinians, the cost of the anti-missile protection and... last but not least the huge amount of money 70,000 reservist soldiers will cost.

What's the advantage for Israel on the other hand?
Showing Israel is still under the threat of muslim extremists and that HAMAS is now equipped by more and more sophisticated weapons given by Iran.
This to maintain foreign support to Israel, to show how dangerous is Iran and how actively they want to harm Israel and therefore how rightful a preemptive strike would be.
This "war" also shows how immature and unreliabe the Palestinians are and how impossible the reality of an independant state is.
Moreso it shows Palestinians they have no diplomatic nor military option for any of their claims.

So do the math. What's the interest of a real peace for Israel right now while settlements can still extend??
What would be the position of Israel in a pacified Middle-East?
And on the other side how long HAMAS will keep power without a war to mask their incompetence??
So little ambitions thrived with so much blood. Pity...


A few recent speeches given by the relevant Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

Speech by Netanyahu to UN - September 2012

Speech was mainly on Iran and nuclear capabilities - but it does show the present position of Netanyahu re: Palestine: We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.

Mahmoud Abbas Speech to UN - September 2012 - though note that Abbas is not universally considered the Palestinian leader. He is from Fatah, and Hamas don't recognize his legitimacy (from what I can gather).

Ismail Haniyah - the Hamas PM

Quote in 2010: "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees," and stated that if the Palestinian electorate approves such a peace agreement with Israel his government will abide by it notwithstanding previous Hamas positions on the issue.

Transcipt of a speech in 2011 - of note is Today, we say, in a clear and unambiguous fashion: The armed resistance and armed struggle are our strategic choice and our path to liberate the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and to drive the usurping invaders out of the blessed land of Palestine

Note: Fatah = West Bank, Hamas = Gaza, in terms of control of the Palestinian territories.

The Exchange

Ah right, you are not a local, you might not know yet :P

Please ignore everything Netanyahu sais, he never means any of it. While he has not been a very aggressive prime minister (by not choosing to attack even when it was "justified" on numerous ocassions) he is not looking for peace in the area, just stability and security for Israel. Hia cocalition is an alliance with the religeous parties, so his interest is to keep the illegal settlements going.
Blah.

The Exchange

One vote for a Matter|AntiMatter reaction in the Middle of Jerusalem so the naughty children understand their crime.


yellowdingo wrote:
One vote for a Matter|AntiMatter reaction in the Middle of Jerusalem so the naughty children understand their crime.

How much?

EDIT: How much antimatter. Not votes.

The Exchange

If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......


As long as it is one to one ratio, the effect will be th same.


Andrew R wrote:
If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......

Two words.

Ancient Egypt (or so they say).


Meanwhile Iran strengthen...

The "might makes right" attitude of Israel push Iran toward acquisition of nuclear weapon (if they ever needed more motivation) and most probably they will have it.

There's no money in the US and Europe for another war in Middle East, especially one that will not make our lives better but worse...

So far Israel was winning all the wars but loosing the peace, this shows the incapacity of Israel to be a major power beyond its military might.
Iranians are chess players, they want the nuclear bomb to become a military power (at least getting the title) but they actively work on being an diplomatic power (able to help solving Middle-East instability) and therefore an economical power (having both a high development potential and the natural resources to finance it).

If Israel fails to make Iran the arch-enemy of humanity its warmonger attitude will isolate itself from both muslim and non-muslim countries.
In a stable and peaceful Middle-East, an Israel unable to deal and to have the ear of its neighbors will be a useless ally for Americas, Europe and Asia.

The greatest strength of United States is its ability to win peace, turning former enemies into partners if not allies (UK, Germany, Japan, Russia, China...). Israel should meditate this...


Blame Israel for all the bad stuff, and then complain when Iran is the one aiming a nuke.

Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.

And the religion of Islam itself is separated into two factions that fight with each other as well. I forgot their names.

I don't see peace coming into the Middle-East any time soon, even if Israel somehow managed to make peace with the violent neighbours it has.


Icyshadow wrote:

Blame Israel for all the bad stuff, and then complain when Iran is the one aiming a nuke.

Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.

And the religion of Islam itself is separated into two factions that fight with each other as well. I forgot their names.

I don't see peace coming into the Middle-East any time soon, even if Israel somehow managed to make peace with the violent neighbours it has.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades.

The only nation that has been shown to be "ready and willing" to use a nuke is the US and that was quite a while back.

Is Iran "aiming a nuke"?
Whatever you mean by that. The US is aiming nukes, as is every other nuclear power most likely.
Do we know that Iran is "ready and willing" to use a nuclear weapon? Other than as a deterrent, like most other nuclear powers. Even if a first strike would be national suicide?


An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.


Mark Sweetman wrote:

An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:

From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.

And reading comments about the way the data were interpreted by the creator of the graphs are interesting. According to the commentators there are multiple problems with the method used - for example it presents as exclusively Israel's fault violent ends of ceasefire that were successful defense against incoming attacks that ended with no casualties on Israel's side. It automatically equates the side who suffered casualty with victim and the one that suffered no casualties with aggressor which is not as simple as that.


Drejk - by all means the article isn't perfect, but in defence of the one that wrote it - she doesn't put it out as anything more than what it is.

With a quick search there are a number of articles from different sources which timeline out the present flare-up as follows:
November 8th - Israel forces kill Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa (a 13 year old playing soccer) in Palestine through indiscriminate fire
November 9th - retaliatory mortar strikes
November 10th - Palestinian militia attack an Israeli jeep - injuring four
November 10-12 - rocket fire from Palestine, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza (some Palestinian casualties, including civilians)
November 13th - provisional lull in fire reported - no strikes or missiles
November 14th - Israel carried out the extrajudicial killing of Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari.
Then Hamas responded in force.

Article from FAIR
Timeline of current flare-up

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I fully agree that Israel is part of the problem. Not because of their existence, but their use of violence. Violence can never solve the problem of violence, I agree.

History would disagree with you. Here's a few examples:

-Troy
-Carthage
-Appomatox
-Hiroshima
-Saigon

Violence can definitely bring about peace. But it has to be overwhelming, uncompromising, horrific violence that people (rightly) frown on.

Israel could solve the Palestinian issue if it really wanted to - force the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank with the overwhelming superiority of the IDF, but the cost of that level of aggression politically and economically would be devastating... far beyond the cost of keeping the Palestinians fenced in forever.


Drejk wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:

An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:

From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
And reading comments about the way the data were interpreted by the creator of the graphs are interesting. According to the commentators there are multiple problems with the method used - for example it presents as exclusively Israel's fault violent ends of ceasefire that were successful defense against incoming attacks that ended with no casualties on Israel's side. It automatically equates the side who suffered casualty with victim and the one that suffered no casualties with aggressor which is not as simple as that.

Also, numbers will say anything if you torture them enough.


@Yakman--

What are you talking about?

After Odysseus and co. pulled off the Trojan horse thingie, and Neoptolemeus (or whatever his name) slaughtered Priam and took his daughters for concubines, Aeneas hobbled off with his pa and his household gods and set up what eventually became Rome.

Who came back a couple of centuries later and put those arrogant Achaeans to the sword!


Yakman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I fully agree that Israel is part of the problem. Not because of their existence, but their use of violence. Violence can never solve the problem of violence, I agree.

History would disagree with you. Here's a few examples:

-Troy
-Carthage
-Appomatox
-Hiroshima
-Saigon

Violence can definitely bring about peace. But it has to be overwhelming, uncompromising, horrific violence that people (rightly) frown on.

Israel could solve the Palestinian issue if it really wanted to - force the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank with the overwhelming superiority of the IDF, but the cost of that level of aggression politically and economically would be devastating... far beyond the cost of keeping the Palestinians fenced in forever.

Well, that would be a final solution to the Palestinian issue. No Palestinians, no problem.

Actually, they'd probably have to just kill them all. Otherwise those evil Arab states would just keep the survivors in refugee camps to embarrass Israel.


I was waiting for another opportunity to link this.

Woody Allen's joke is pretty funny, but stick around for William Buckley's commentary!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Sweetman wrote:

An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:

From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.

That article completly neglects to mention that when "Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians", That was when the IDF had accurate intelligence that those Palestinians were members of a terrorist group preparing to start a kidnapping operation in order to take a soldier hostage. Is a preemptive strike really the first one? or just a VERY fast response? This is not a rhetoric question, I'm actualy not sure. I tend to think the IDF is justified in attacking preemptivley, but I may be wrong on this account.

If Hamas is constantly brewing up nasty new suprises for Israel during a cease fire, it means the ceasefire is not real.


I can't find anything that says that they were members of a planned kidnapping ring. All I can find is that they were manning mortar and rocket positions after Israel had carried out a raid across the border.


They've kidnapped soldiers before and held them hostage while making various demands before releasing them.

One time, they gave back a soldier, but only after they had killed the guy. It's quite possible there was a kidnap plan.


Yes, I know, "they" have. But was there accurate IDF info that these guys were or is Lord Snow just making stuff up?

To clarify: I can find no claims that there was accurate IDF intel that the six Palestinians killed on 4 November 2008 were planning on being kidnappers.


Icyshadow wrote:

Blame Israel for all the bad stuff, and then complain when Iran is the one aiming a nuke.

Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.

So the nukes that Israel has are for what... holding potted plants?

Its such a badly kept secret that Israel has them that they pretty much admit it on the daily show.


Andrew R wrote:
If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......

If you're responding to some of my comments, I don't think you understand my point at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its such a badly kept secret that Israel has them that they pretty much admit it on the daily show.

Did you know...?

Mordechai Vanunu

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

@Yakman--

What are you talking about?

After Odysseus and co. pulled off the Trojan horse thingie, and Neoptolemeus (or whatever his name) slaughtered Priam and took his daughters for concubines, Aeneas hobbled off with his pa and his household gods and set up what eventually became Rome.

Who came back a couple of centuries later and put those arrogant Achaeans to the sword!

Well, if you believe Virgil, who was trying to tie the Roman narrative into the Greek one. It certainly makes for a great story.

In reality, the Greeks so scourged the area that the Asian Aegean coast remained ethnically and culturally Greek (for the most part) until Ataturk expelled them after the establishment of the Turkish Republic (yes, it was part of an agreed set of population transfers between Athens and Ankara).


If you believe Homer.

At least we know for a fact that Virgil really lived.


Mark Sweetman wrote:

An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:

From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.

I love how Gaza's idea of a cease fire is to only fire one-eight rockets a month... It's not what the name suggests to me.

Article wrote:
Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel.

Or perhaps it ended with the rocket fired in July? Maybe with the 8 rockets fired in August?


Icyshadow wrote:

Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.

And the religion of Islam itself is separated into two factions that fight with each other as well. I forgot their names.

I don't see peace coming into the Middle-East any time soon, even if Israel somehow managed to make peace with the violent neighbours it has.

You're finally saying stuff that is sane enough I can agree with!

Yes, clearly America (Allied powers) were far more evil than the Nazis (and Axis powers) since, ya know, we're the only ones to ever have deployed a nuke in warfare.

You're right, Islam is divided and has been fighting amongst itself for well over a thousand years. The ONLY thing uniting the factions is the nation of Israel. Ya know, occupying one of their holy cities and all. So, if you REALLY want to stick it to them, you'd leave and come back in a hundred years after they've killed each other off.

Peace (probably) won't come to the middle east until after Israel is gone...OR they're the last ones standing.

Let me be clear, I think all religion is a huge waste of time, and for what it's worth I think Islam is generally a worse, less tolerant, and more violent religion. But someone has to be a grown up and say no. If y'all want to go to war I couldn't care less, I just resent having to pay for it.


Kip84 wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:

An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:

From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.

I love how Gaza's idea of a cease fire is to only fire one-eight rockets a month... It's not what the name suggests to me.

Article wrote:
Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel.
Or perhaps it ended with the rocket fired in July? Maybe with the 8 rockets fired in August?

I guess proportional response is not a term you're familiar with.

If Israel were willing to shake off utterly insignificant rocket attacks rather than retaliate with overwhelming force, we'd have at least a livable peace.

It's like a man with a knife standing over a brutalized and bloody body saying "he spilled my beer."

251 to 300 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Facts about the war in Israel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.