Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

taking soldiers prisoners is surely part of war?

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine. Israel can't be expected to tie one hand behind its back to give them a sporting chance?

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

Finally, the beach killings - I understood there were huge question marks about the causes. There was no evidence of shells, no crater, no shrapnel, but there was a Hamas bomb making plant nearby. Have the Israelis actually accepted responsibility for the attack?

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine. Israel can't be expected to tie one hand behind its back to give them a sporting chance?

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

Finally, the beach killings - I understood there were huge question marks about the causes. There was no evidence of shells, no crater, no shrapnel, but there was a Hamas bomb making plant nearby. Have the Israelis actually accepted responsibility for the attack?

The Israelis have been stirring up this conflict ever since they left Gaza. Leaving Gaza counts for little if you continue incessantly bombing it. During the ceasefires supposedly agreed between the 2 sides, the Israelis continued their so-called "targeted killings" by bombing whole streets of civilians because one terrorist might be there. This is blatently disregarding of civilian life, and a war-crime. Their settlements are illegal.

If we were occupied for 40 years, I don't think we would be taking it lying down either.

I call on the Irish people to boycott goods from Israel. The govts will do nothing for fear of offending the Zionist lobby in the US. A EU-wide consumer boycott of Israeli imports is the only way to bring this regime to its senses. They are drunk on American money and arms. A counterbalance is needed against the forces of Zionist imperialism.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

The Israelis have been stirring up this conflict ever since they left Gaza. Leaving Gaza counts for little if you continue incessantly bombing it. During the ceasefires supposedly agreed between the 2 sides, the Israelis continued their so-called "targeted killings" by bombing whole streets of civilians because one terrorist might be there. This is blatently disregarding of civilian life, and a war-crime. Their settlements are illegal.

I completely agree. Israel has huge questions to answer, the treatment of Gaza indefensible.

But the point I make again is that, on this particular issue, Hamas are wrong. They just cannot defend the kidnapping. If as you suggest it happened in a war, then how can anyone say cranking up military action is wrong? Should only half an army be deployed in a war? Must they give the Palestinians a chance?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine.

Whacking off to the old Janes magazines is a terrible vice! Tut-tut.

Deleted User wrote:

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

It's not valid because you say so?

Surely you'd agree the British could have fired a few tank rounds and rockets over the border at some farmhouses and been well within their rights to do so?

Many of the people living around the border were sympathisers anyway, no matter what the position of the Irish govt.

It would have been no more than Israel has done while Arafat and then Abbas were in charge of the PA and Hamas were on the outside.

So how about it then?

Funny position for a FF-acolyte to be in - implicitly supporting the rights of the British Army to rocket militant farmhouses in Co. Louth!:D

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Whacking of to the old Janes magazines is a terrible vice!

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?

fly_agaric wrote:

It's not valid because you say so?

No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province. Perhaps that is because I 'say so', but my 'say so' is no more (in)valid than anothers.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

I completely agree. Israel has huge questions to answer, the treatment of Gaza indefensible.

But the point I make again is that, on this particular issue, Hamas are wrong. They just cannot defend the kidnapping. If as you suggest it happened in a war, then how can anyone say cranking up military action is wrong? Should only half an army be deployed in a war? Must they give the Palestinians a chance?

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't - and should only come after negotiations.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't

But you said it's war. Who fights a 'proportionate' war? Does that mean leaving the stealth bombers at home and taking up kaleshnikovs and 20 year old stingers if that's all the enemy has?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?

I assure you, I am not a hard-left, the US/the West/capitalism are the root of all evil on Earth type of person.:)

And drooling over Moores' ample stomach is not as bad as drooling over those big fat juicy bombs on an F15 IMO.

No quips about which is the bigger theft of resourses that could have been used for a less destructive purpose please!

Deleted User wrote:

No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province.

The situation is not exactly analagous but the comparison is still worthwhile (IMO - like most stuff here).

As someone posted earlier, I think your personal connections to this situation are affecting your judgement of this affair.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

But you said it's war. Who fights a 'proportionate' war? Does that mean leaving the stealth bombers at home and taking up kaleshnikovs and 20 year old stingers if that's all the enemy has?

But they are going way over the top. Even in war there are rules e.g. Geneva Convention. Settlement building on occupied land violates that, as does attacking civilian infrastructure. They should have used a surgical strike to get him out. What they are doing is jeopardising this soldiers life. The Israeli intransigence keeps the conflict going and has done since 1967. They remind me of the Unionists in this regard.

Sand

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

I wonder what sort of suffering it would take to justify war crimes against civillians. Sorry, "understanding".

spanner

New_Departure06 wrote:

There were tensions and violence sure, but nothing on the scale of what followed. The great powers just rushed into this momentous decision without adequate consultation with the Arabs.

In 1929 Arabs stormed the jewish communities of Hebron slaughtering the community with knives. Women and children were not spared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

In 1948, as the British were pulling out, A partition deal was offered to the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jewish representives accepted it and the Arabs did not vowing to wipe Jews from the Holy land.

From reading the posts here you get the impression that Israel invaded the occupied territories as per some colonial aggression, where the actual issue was that the occupied territories actually tried to invade Israel to "Drive them out to sea" In the words of Nasser.

the only solution to this problem is for Israel to live side by side with a palestinian state. one cant terriorise the other without expecting nothing in return

The Saint

spanner wrote:

In 1929 Arabs stormed the jewish communities of Hebron slaughtering the community with knives. Women and children were not spared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

In 1948, as the British were pulling out, A partition deal was offered to the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jewish representives accepted it and the Arabs did not vowing to wipe Jews from the Holy land.

From reading the posts here you get the impression that Israel invaded the occupied territories as per some colonial aggression, where the actual issue was that the occupied territories actually tried to invade Israel to "Drive them out to sea" In the words of Nasser.

the only solution to this problem is for Israel to live side by side with a palestinian state. one cant terriorise the other without expecting nothing in return

Zionist terrorist acts:
During the period 1937-1939, the Irgun conducted a campaign of bombings and other acts of violence against Arab civilians.
Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.
The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during "The Hunting Season" (1944-1945).
The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91 people.
Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946.
The 1947 reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
In September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.

I'm not doing this to make a statement in one way or the other. I'm doing this to show that there was terrorism on both sides before partition. You're just showing one side of it. This is also not to mention the ethnic cleansing and massacres that took place after partition when around 700,000 Arabs were forced to leave their homes and land during and after the 1948 war.

Please answer me this. Why would the indigeunous population agree to partition? Do you think it is reasonable for an indigenous people to be kicked off their lands and be dispossessed and disenfranchised to facilitate non-native primarily European and Russian immigrants? How would you feel if the UN decided to partition Ireland (the republic I mean) to give to a bunch of Kenyans and you were kicked off your land without reparations? Why would the Arabs that owned 100% of mandate Palestine accept just 45% of it under the partition plan? They would have been insane to do it. Can you think of anywhere or anyone that would accept this? I definitely can't.

You say that Israel didn't invade the occupied territories as colonial agression. May I ask why they still occupy most of these lands and have placed settlements on them? Please tell me how annexing land, settling it, trying to control an angry indigenous and antagonised population makes Israel more safe. There are no countries in the region trying to drive Israel into the sea. Nassir is dead and Egypt is an ally of Israel now.

New_Departure06

Down with Zionazi terror against the Palestinians.

oscarBravo

N_D06, that's a less than helpful contribution. You wouldn't want me to think you were trolling, would you?

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

N_D06, that's a less than helpful contribution. You wouldn't want me to think you were trolling, would you?

No OscarBravo, but don't you think I have given plenty of evidence to back this up? I also feel that of all people, the Jews, knowing what it is is like to be terribly oppressed, should not want to oppress others? Is there not an irony here?

oscarBravo

I was referring to the use of "Zionazi". Make your points in a civil, reasoned fashion. Back on topic.

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

I was referring to the use of "Zionazi". Make your points in a civil, reasoned fashion. Back on topic.

OK.

spanner

The Saint wrote:

I'm not doing this to make a statement in one way or the other. I'm doing this to show that there was terrorism on both sides before partition. .

this I completely agree with, the reason why I just made the points that I did was because from reading other posts, you would get the impression that their was no atriocities committed by arabs in the region

Please answer me this. Why would the indigeunous population agree to partition? Do you think it is reasonable for an indigenous people to be kicked off their lands

Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

How would you feel if the UN decided to partition Ireland (the republic I mean) to give to a bunch of Kenyans and you were kicked off your land without reparations?

I am sick of people comparing Ireland to Israel, the two places are completely different and you cannot make a fair comparison. If Kenyans and Irish people bothed lived on this land and their was constant Violence and they just didnt get on I might agree to partition to stop bloodshed

May I ask why they still occupy most of these lands and have placed settlements on them? Please tell me how annexing land, settling it,
.

The settlement program is wrong and I totally disgree with it. I agree with you in that it does not make Israel safer and only further antagonises the palestinian people. It is also a major stumbling block to developing the two states which is the only way the region can proceed peacefully

There are no countries in the region trying to drive Israel into the sea. Nassir is dead and Egypt is an ally of Israel now.

Syria are still not very happy with Israel. Egypt realised that Israel cannot be destroyed and that it has a right to exist, so it was better to be at peace with it than war.

Also I belive Israel should pay reparations to Palestinians who can prove they lived in modern day Israel and were moved out

The Saint

spanner wrote:

this I completely agree with, the reason why I just made the points that I did was because from reading other posts, you would get the impression that their was no atriocities committed by arabs in the region


Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

I am sick of people comparing Ireland to Israel, the two places are completely different and you cannot make a fair comparison. If Kenyans and Irish people bothed lived on this land and their was constant Violence and they just didnt get on I might agree to partition to stop bloodshed

The settlement program is wrong and I totally disgree with it. I agree with you in that it does not make Israel safer and only further antagonises the palestinian people. It is also a major stumbling block to developing the two states which is the only way the region can proceed peacefully

Syria are still not very happy with Israel. Egypt realised that Israel cannot be destroyed and that it has a right to exist, so it was better to be at peace with it than war.

How were the Jewish people indigenous? Please do not refer to the Bible or the fact that they were there two thousand years ago and therefore have a legitimate right to the land. Fact, in 1914 Jews constituted under 8% of the population of Palestine and owned under 2% of the land. So why in 1948 would it be acceptable for the Arabs to give up 55% of their land to Russian and European immigrants? How would that be fair? You are not addressing my questions.

My reference to Ireland could be used with any other country having over half their land confiscated and given to an immigrant population that is not even from the region. It is not irrelivant. Would any people accept being disenfranchised and ethnically cleansed from their land by immigrants? There was no mass bloodshed or constant violence before the massive immigration and disenfranchisement of the indigenous population. The indigenous Jews lived peacefully with the Muslim majority and the Christian population. Jews were the smallest demographic in Palestine.

A Dub in Glasgo

Once again Israel carries out terrorist acts and there is silence from the self appointed defenders of freedom

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Once again Israel carries out terrorist acts and there is silence from the self appointed defenders of freedom

Real politik really.
Just like adams and co wont condemn murderers because well they get something from them,Neither are Bush et all quick off the mark to condemn or do something about everything that maybe they should be doing something about.

Real politik also extends to the people that vote for these people.

Would that the world was a perfect place,all sweetness and light...

A Dub in Glasgo

You mean hypocrisy?

purple'n'gold

Israelis are simply cowards, bullies and murderers. They behave the way they do because they know the USA will back them up no matter what atrocities they commit.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?



No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province. Perhaps that is because I 'say so', but my 'say so' is no more (in)valid than anothers.

OK maybe a Mandela analogy would be more fitting?

sovtek

New_Departure06 wrote:

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't - and should only come after negotiations.

...shouldn't defy international law and involve war crimes.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

I wonder what sort of suffering it would take to justify war crimes against civillians. Sorry, "understanding".

I don't know but suspect you might have a better grasp of when it is?

sovtek

spanner wrote:

Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

My surname is Scottish and my mother's maiden name is Irish...does that make me either one?

spanner

[

The Saint wrote:

How were the Jewish people indigenous? Please do not refer to the Bible or the fact that they were there two thousand years ago and therefore have a legitimate right to the land. Fact, in 1914 Jews constituted under 8% of the population of Palestine and owned under 2% of the land. So why in 1948 would it be acceptable for the Arabs to give up 55% of their land to Russian and European immigrants? How would that be fair? You are not addressing my questions.
.

There was no Arab state before 1948 so it really wasnt their land to give up. jewish immigrants were coming to this land long before 1948 so they have a right to a homeland their as does the arab population. There is no other solution to this problem, you cant make the Jewish immigrants go back to were they came from or you cant ask the palestinians to go somewhere else

.

My reference to Ireland could be used with any other country having over half their land confiscated and given to an immigrant population that is not even from the region. It is not irrelivant. Would any people accept being disenfranchised and ethnically cleansed from their land by immigrants? There was no mass bloodshed or constant violence before the massive immigration and disenfranchisement of the indigenous population. The indigenous Jews lived peacefully with the Muslim majority and the Christian population. Jews were the smallest demographic in Palestine.

The plight of Jews and Muslims in this region is unqiue and really cant be compared fairly to any other situation.

sovtek

spanner wrote:

[

The plight of Jews and Muslims in this region is unqiue and really cant be compared fairly to any other situation.

A foreign military invading a country and occupying it for decades as well as discriminating against the invaded race...wow that's so unique in history.

sovtek

spanner wrote:

[
There was no Arab state before 1948 so it really wasnt their land to give up. jewish immigrants were coming to this land long before 1948 so they have a right to a homeland their as does the arab population. There is no other solution to this problem, you cant make the Jewish immigrants go back to were they came from or you cant ask the palestinians to go somewhere else

So a deed to your house means nothing?
Let me get this straight....
Because the people that lived there weren't named after the country then foreignors had every right to take it from them?