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

spanner

sovtek wrote:

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

What ever nationality you chose, I dont think that question is relevant

sovtek

spanner wrote:

What ever nationality you chose, I dont think that question is relevant

So that means a bunch of Texans with Irish surnames have every right to come here and take over?

spanner

sovtek wrote:

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.

Were exactly did this "Foreign Military" come from. If you are reffering to the IDF it was actually an amalgamation of jewish milita set up to protect the jewish community long before 1948

spanner

sovtek wrote:

So that means a bunch of Texans with Irish surnames have every right to come here and take over?

again i dont think making these comparisons is fair

The Saint

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

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

There was a majority indigenous Arab population there that were displaced by immigrants. The fact that there was no set boundaries and national bureaucracy doesn't negate the fact that there was an indigenous population living there and were displaced and had their home and town destroyed by an non-indigenous immigrant population. How do you figure that immigrants had as much right to the land as the indigenous population? Really, can you please rationalise that for me as you have yet to do so.

While there had been Jewish immigration into historic Palestince since the 19th century the demographics which I have already cited show that they were a minority behind Muslim and Christian Arabs. How do 8% of the population in 1914 get 55% of the land in 1948?

I don't suggest sending Jews back to where they came from. I'm just trying to put the situation into some historical context trying to dispell the myth that the Jewish rights have more legitmacy than the indigenous Arab population. I think there is a perfectly reasonable solution to this problem, one that has been supported by almost everyone in the world. That is the one based on UN242 which Israel with the US (and sometimes with Pilau and Dominica etc.) rejects. Full land for full peace with a negotiation on the right of return. I understand that Israel can't demographically allow all those entitles to return to their land in what is now Israel. Some should be allowed to return and the rest should be paid reparations.

Also the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't as unique in history as you say although the situation of today is unique in the fact that what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is not done anywhere else in the world such as administering a territory whilst giving total rights to one section of the population and denying rights to the other. I don't know any other country where you need an internal passport to move from one area of the country to another.

The Saint

spanner wrote:

Were exactly did this "Foreign Military" come from. If you are reffering to the IDF it was actually an amalgamation of jewish milita set up to protect the jewish community long before 1948

You mean terrorist organisations? If it's good for the goose..............

Zombrex

spanner wrote:

There was no Arab state before 1948 so it really wasnt their land to give up.

Not sure what you mean by "Arab state" but you have to go back a long time before you get to when there was a Jewish state in Israel.

The area that is know known as Israel had been under Muslim control since the 7th century CE, and part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517CE.

spanner wrote:

jewish immigrants were coming to this land long before 1948 so they have a right to a homeland their as does the arab population.

How do you define it "their own land"

Modern Jewish immigration into the area didn't start properly till the late 19th century.

Israel is the Jewish homeland because it was given to them, not because they had a right to it. And many would argue that those that gave it to them (mainly the British) had no right to in the first place.

spanner wrote:

you cant make the Jewish immigrants go back to were they came from or you cant ask the palestinians to go somewhere else

That is true, but the attitude that this land rightfully belongs to the Jewish people is part of the problem. And thats before you get into the land grabs of the post-War state.

sovtek

spanner wrote:

again i dont think making these comparisons is fair

Then please explain how it isnt' much the same thing?

sovtek

The Saint wrote:

Also the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't as unique in history as you say although the situation of today is unique in the fact that what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is not done anywhere else in the world such as administering a territory whilst giving total rights to one section of the population and denying rights to the other. I don't know any other country where you need an internal passport to move from one area of the country to another.

Actually in Apartheid South Africa blacks were required to have passports to be anywhere outside of their "areas" and had to essentially have a work permit to live outside the bantustans.
The Israeli government is often compared to the government mentioned (oh and Israel support apartheid quite openly, even though jews were discriminated against)

craigcharlie

I've just read this whole thread....good posts from a lot of people, notably sceptre, the saint, and wicknight. it's nice to see people taking the time to try to research this issue.

this topic makes my blood boil, and judging from this thread, the same is true for a lot of you. There have been a lot of atrocities committed by both 'sides' (assuming that these sides are a united front, and don't necessarily contain any 'civilians'), and that's where we are today, there's no escaping that.

I really don't have too much to add here, a lot of people who are fairly educated on this topic have posted a ton of info. A lot of it is actually new to me, so cheers for that.

One thing that I think has been a touch overlooked, though some people have mentioned it a bit, is the stake that the international community has in supporting Israel, particularly the US, in an effort to maintain "stability" or "a presence" in the area. Check out the following article, pay particular attention to the sections on aid and military sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Israel_relations

You might also want to pay attention to the section of the article that discusses Marshall's objection to the plan (i.e., George Marshall, the guy who was so instrumental in getting Europe aid for rebuilding after the WWII). Marshall warned Truman that creating Israel would help destabilize the region, but he was ignored. Ever wonder what the world would be like if Truman had made a different decision?

I remember when I was in college, I came across a photo of a Palestinian man holding up a piece of broken artillery that had landed in his neighborhood... stamped on it were the words "US Army". A picture is worth a thousand words and all that....I've never forgotten that image, and it made an impression on me in terms of what's going on in the region.

On another point - at this stage we all know that Israel only formally came into existence in the late 40's. However, other people in this thread referred to the situation as the "status quo", and I believe they inferred that since Israeli Jews are there now, than they have a de facto right to the land. However, think about this -

There are currently living Palestinians who remember getting booted off their land in their teens.

Those Palestinians are telling stories to their grandchildren, to their children, about all the injustices they've experienced. Some of those stories might sound a fair bit like stories that Irish grandparents were passing down not so long ago. With the hostile takeover of territory and displacement of an indigenous population in such recent memory, how could you expect Palestinians to feel/react?

I know there have been a lot of points made on both sides of this issue, and most people have been pretty clear about declaring their support for one side or the other. This is a very polarized issue for most people, and I'm not any different from them.... At base, I think you have to ask yourself one question; it's the same thing that someone noted as a cliche earlier:

Do you believe Palestinian fighters are freedom-fighters or terrorists?

And before you answer, think of the relation of those terms to the Irish state, which of course wouldn't exist except for freedom-fighters/terrorists, whatever you wanna call em.

Chakar

I think everybody will agree that peaceful reconcliation is the only way to end the violence in the Middle East.Its going to prove even more difficult that times go on as they would have hardwired hatred against the Israelis.

Red Alert

Israel was 'created' by the international community to repay the supposed 'debt' the international community owed for hitler's dispicable crimes. much of the current unrest comes from the fact that Israel views its right to exist as superseeding the rights of the indigineous arab population.

what is totally wrong is for the US to allow israel to act with impunity in the region because of some sympathies dating back to the war years. israel knows that it can get away with these atrocities and abuses this as a result.

Mr. Presentable

Sadly, the powers in recent history (England/USA) have created the "State of Israel" the same way they created Kuwait and other artificial "countries" by stealing land. I have nothing but sympathy for the Israeli people, but they should just return to Palestine as ethnic Palestinians, as the Kuwaitis should rejoin Iraq.

LegacyUser

Guys the Israeli people existed in whats now regarded as the Holy Land along time before the Islamic Faith developed.The jewish people only returned to a land that was thiers nothing more.

I dont accept the argument that the State of Israel is the agressor in the region....

It shocks me to think that given the headline in the Hearled tonight that Islamic terrorists targeted Dublin Airport today that there are people out there that will publicly voice thier support for a goverment that is essentially an Islamic terrorrsist organisation or at the very least an ally to them.

bobbyjoe

kaiser1 wrote:

Guys the Israeli people existed in whats now regarded as the Holy Land along time before the Islamic Faith developed.The jewish people only returned to a land that was thiers nothing more.

I dont accept the argument that the State of Israel is the agressor in the region....

It shocks me to think that given the headline in the Hearled tonight that Islamic terrorists targeted Dublin Airport today that there are people out there that will publicly voice thier support for a goverment that is essentially an Islamic terrorrsist organisation or at the very least an ally to them.

What shocks me more is that the Herald had a headline "terror comes to Dublin" and suggest its islamic terror before anyone knows what the sitiuation is. Up till now maybe more info has become available but all I've heard is a suspect package. Which could be a book for all we know but they use it to justify that headline.

spanner

I think you can go on forever on the question who has more legitmatacy to the land. Both sides inhabited the land at one stage or another and both sides have committed atrocites.
But I think the only way forward in the region is to have a democratic state of palestine side by side with Israel. The Israelis must invest in creating a stable government and invest in the economy, the palestinians need to recongise Israel, crust all militants and speak with one voice weather that is hamas or fata

bonkey

kaiser1 wrote:

Guys the Israeli people existed in whats now regarded as the Holy Land along time before the Islamic Faith developed.The jewish people only returned to a land that was thiers nothing more.

Don't you mean that Jewish people returned to a land which was once under Jewish control, regardless of how many of today's Jews actually are descended from those who's land it was?

I would also point out that the birth-date of the Islamic faith has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless you are suggesting that religious claims should have primacy over anything else.

I dont accept the argument that the State of Israel is the agressor in the region....

Some people don't accept that the world is round. Acceptance has little to do with anything.

It shocks me to think that given the headline in the Hearled tonight that Islamic terrorists targeted Dublin Airport today that there are people out there that will publicly voice thier support for a goverment that is essentially an Islamic terrorrsist organisation or at the very least an ally to them.

Most people here who are not supporting Israel are saying Israel is wrong. This is a statement distinct from Palestine is right. I admit there are still some who take this latter line, but then again I'm shocked anyone can suggest that Israel has done nothing wrong.

jc

spanner

Israel has done many things wrong and must pay for this. but I do belive the Jewish people have a right to a state in the region

Hogmeister B

kaiser1 wrote:

Guys the Israeli people existed in whats now regarded as the Holy Land along time before the Islamic Faith developed.The jewish people only returned to a land that was thiers nothing more.

I dont accept the argument that the State of Israel is the agressor in the region....

The idea that you can leave land for over 1500 years and then expect it back from those who have settled there since is utterly, utterly preposterous. The idea that you'd kill and displace to get it back is obscene.

Do you think that, say, the Hungarians have a right to live and stay in central Asia, whence they migrated about 1000 years ago? What about the Finns, who haven't been in the Volga region of Russia for a thousand years or so? Should the Roma gypsies kick the Indians out of India, who had the tenacity to move in a century or two after they left for Europe 900 years ago? Maybe us Celts should take the option of kicking out the Latvians etc and moving back to eastern Europe, expecting to find it as we left it a mere milennium ago?

I'm sorry but voluntary migration in ancient times does not allow you right of return with precedence over 'newer' settlers.

Hogmeister B

kaiser1 wrote:

I can see where your arguments are coming from...and once upon a time my sympathies leaned more towards the plight of the Palestinians.
But then I saw the videos of the Americans Jack Hensley,Nick Berg and Briton Ken Bigley.These men died a horiffic death all in the name of "Islam".

Those atrocities does not negate the massive injustice being pepetrated against palestinians. For christ's sake, do you think that all christians should be brutalised because of the atrocities committed by, say, the Americans in Iraq or the French in Algeria, or any other of dozens of ferocious acts committed by 'christians' in places like Vietnam, Latin America, Cambodia, Chechnya, Indonesia?

You don't recognise the palestinians' plight because a couple of crazy foreign co-religionists committed an atrocity in a different country. How very reasonable...

Flex

Hogmeister B wrote:

The idea that you can leave land for over 1500 years and then expect it back from those who have settled there since is utterly, utterly preposterous. The idea that you'd kill and displace to get it back is obscene.

Do you think that, say, the Hungarians have a right to live and stay in central Asia, whence they migrated about 1000 years ago? What about the Finns, who haven't been in the Volga region of Russia for a thousand years or so? Should the Roma gypsies kick the Indians out of India, who had the tenacity to move in a century or two after they left for Europe 900 years ago? Maybe us Celts should take the option of kicking out the Latvians etc and moving back to eastern Europe, expecting to find it as we left it a mere milennium ago?

I'm sorry but voluntary migration in ancient times does not allow you right of return with precedence over 'newer' settlers.

Exactly...

New_Departure06

kaiser1 wrote:

Guys the Israeli people existed in whats now regarded as the Holy Land along time before the Islamic Faith developed.The jewish people only returned to a land that was thiers nothing more.

I dont accept the argument that the State of Israel is the agressor in the region....

It shocks me to think that given the headline in the Hearled tonight that Islamic terrorists targeted Dublin Airport today that there are people out there that will publicly voice thier support for a goverment that is essentially an Islamic terrorrsist organisation or at the very least an ally to them.

And the American Indians were in the US first. Should the rest of the Americans leave?

The Dublin Airport bomb was a hoax and that has been acknowledged. The man arrested for the earlier hoax is white Irish and is not a Muslim as I understand it.

Israel is the aggressor because it is illegally occupying the West Bank.

Just because the Jews were there (after the Philistines btw) does not mean they have the right to oppress the people already there. Israel is the most arrogant nation on earth.

A Dub in Glasgo

The brave Israeli military have tonight slaughtered a family including a 6 year old child. Time for the 'Democrats' of the world to make their mark and stop backing Israeli murder & terrorism.

Sand

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

Well no, Id always believe terrorism to be wrong. This opinion isnt shared by others though, I hear an awful lot of crap like "Well, the Palestinians are desperate so its understandable/justifiable..."

I also have to admit, its great that Hamas got elected, because its fun throwing back the old "Well Israeli voters produce this evil government, so Israeli civillians are valid targets" line. Now I can just copy and paste in Palestinian where appropriate.

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

It means that whilst the Israelis give back the keys and land deeds to Palestinian refugees, you ought to be booking a one way flight to Ireland/Scotland after turning over your keys and land deeds to your local Native American tribal representitives. The US (or any country come to think of it, theyre all founded on land "stolen" from somebody else, all that differs are the dates involved) afterall has no more right to exist than Israel.

The rights and wrong, historical, theological, moral and legal debates over Israels right to exist are all pointless and waste of time. It exists, and its not going to voluntarily cease to exist even if people somehow "prove" it shouldnt. After all, would it really make any difference in the case of "freedom fighters" bashing a 13 year old face in with a rock? Would it be any more or less justifiable/understandable? You might not have heard of any of those kids - theyre not Palestinians, so they had it coming to them.

Do you believe Palestinian fighters are freedom-fighters or terrorists?

See above - Anyone who can bash a kids face in with a rock is clearly a heroic freedom fighter...or at least, their actions are understandable/jutifiable given demonic Israeli aggression. Afterall, wouldnt we all be out there bashing kids heads in if it was us?

The brave Israeli military have tonight slaughtered a family including a 6 year old child. Time for the 'Democrats' of the world to make their mark and stop backing Israeli murder & terrorism.

I guess Glasgo, that each 'Democrat' needs to make their own little personal effort to stop backing murder and terrorism. Possibly by not voting for it.

New_Departure06

The rights and wrong, historical, theological, moral and legal debates over Israels right to exist are all pointless and waste of time. It exists, and its not going to voluntarily cease to exist even if people somehow "prove" it shouldnt. After all, would it really make any difference in the case of "freedom fighters" bashing a 13 year old face in with a rock? Would it be any more or less justifiable/understandable? You might not have heard of any of those kids - theyre not Palestinians, so they had it coming to them.

Why does a missile stand on higher moral ground than a rock?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

See above - Anyone who can bash a kids face in with a rock is clearly a heroic freedom fighter...or at least, their actions are understandable/jutifiable given demonic Israeli aggression.

Bashing a kids face in with a rock is a heroic freedom-fighter's action, just as shooting kids to death for throwing rocks at tanks is a noble act of defense on the part of any nation.

They're both wrong. They both need to change. While they both insist that its the other's job to change first, they never will.

Sand

Why does a missile stand on higher moral ground than a rock?

Oh great, lets focus on the technology involved and ignore that theyre only extensions of will...

Ask yourself is there a case where you can accidentially hold down a 13 year old and cave in their face with a rock?

Then ask yourself can you accidentially hit a 13 year old with a missle fired from typically great distances, well outside visual range in most cases?

I could go on and lay out the case in excruciating detail but if youre able to give honest answers to the both, then I dont have to. If youre not able to then its a waste of my time.

Bashing a kids face in with a rock is a heroic freedom-fighter's action, just as shooting kids to death for throwing rocks at tanks is a noble act of defense on the part of any nation.

They're both wrong. They both need to change. While they both insist that its the other's job to change first, they never will.

Again were back to the motif that New Departure referred to. Palestian rocks vs Israeli Abrams. Youd almost think they had Max Clifford working for them. We dont hear so much about Palestinian Quassams vs Israeli schoolyards. But yes, they are both wrong. The Israelis should cease expanding settlements, its a needless and futile source of conflict, and begin demolishing/evacuating the outlying, isolated and minor ones as was done in Gaza.

The Palestinians need to stop using withdrawals - like in Gaza - to launch rocket attacks into Israeli towns. It is again a needless, futile source of conflict that practically pleads for an Israeli response. They also need to stop targeting civillians. It is wrong, always, regardless of their sob story. Everyone has a sad tale that completely justifies their wrongdoing. Hamas in particular needs to recognise Israel, disavow terrorism and generally clean up its act so funding can reach the ordinary Palestinian people. These are not big asks.

I dont think peace is possible in the forseeable future, but a combination of the security wall and reduced exposure in the West Bank should hopefully allow a 10-20 year period of stalemate to develop. At this point the conflict is self sustaining; the Palestinians drop a rocket on a Israeli town, the Israelis bomb a Hamas office, so the Palestinians shoot an Israeli civillian, so the Israelis invade a camp and so on and so forth. Whats needed, more than anything, is a cooling off period.

Manic Moran

Palestian rocks vs Israeli Abrams.

Merkavas and Mag'achs actually. Outside of the US Army, the only Abrams in the Middle East are used by Arabic militaries.

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Oh great, lets focus on the technology involved and ignore that theyre only extensions of will...

Ask yourself is there a case where you can accidentially hold down a 13 year old and cave in their face with a rock?

Then ask yourself can you accidentially hit a 13 year old with a missle fired from typically great distances, well outside visual range in most cases?

I could go on and lay out the case in excruciating detail but if youre able to give honest answers to the both, then I dont have to. If youre not able to then its a waste of my time.

Sending a missile into a crowded city/area/house is just as disgusting as smashing a face in with a rock, yet you seem to think it is not!

Again were back to the motif that New Departure referred to. Palestian rocks vs Israeli Abrams. Youd almost think they had Max Clifford working for them. We dont hear so much about Palestinian Quassams vs Israeli schoolyards. But yes, they are both wrong. The Israelis should cease expanding settlements, its a needless and futile source of conflict, and begin demolishing/evacuating the outlying, isolated and minor ones as was done in Gaza.

The Palestinians need to stop using withdrawals - like in Gaza - to launch rocket attacks into Israeli towns. It is again a needless, futile source of conflict that practically pleads for an Israeli response. They also need to stop targeting civillians. It is wrong, always, regardless of their sob story. Everyone has a sad tale that completely justifies their wrongdoing. Hamas in particular needs to recognise Israel, disavow terrorism and generally clean up its act so funding can reach the ordinary Palestinian people. These are not big asks.

I dont think peace is possible in the forseeable future, but a combination of the security wall and reduced exposure in the West Bank should hopefully allow a 10-20 year period of stalemate to develop. At this point the conflict is self sustaining; the Palestinians drop a rocket on a Israeli town, the Israelis bomb a Hamas office, so the Palestinians shoot an Israeli civillian, so the Israelis invade a camp and so on and so forth. Whats needed, more than anything, is a cooling off period.

After all that, it boils down to tit for tat?

Why are the international community (including Ireland) not recalling their ambassadors from Israel? Why are they not calling the Israeli reps in each country to give a stern talking to? why is Israel not being ostricised by the international community? Could it be that the actions of the Israelis are supported by most of the 'democrats' of the world as an example of Realpolitik?

Manic Moran

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

After all that, it boils down to tit for tat?

It does rather seem to, doesn't it?

Why are the international community (including Ireland) not recalling their ambassadors from Israel?

Because we have no ambassadors to Hamas? Since both sides are pretty egregious, it would be a little biased to confine diplomatic activity to only one side of the equation.

NTM