Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Erm... Pan-Islamic ideaology is the main culprit of all problems in Middle East less Israel? Zionism idealogy is the main culprit of all problems in Israel and its surrounding regions?
Corruption and inadequancies of governance is the main cause of problems in Arab nations. They utilize and exaggerate the fear factor from suicide bombings to legitimize their hard rule. The main raison d etre for the existance of terrorist groups and its attacks on the goverments and kingdoms of the Arab countries is due to the harsh treatment received for voicing or writing against the state, rather than establishing a pan-islamic state. Like the JI which thrives of the leverage between various separatist movements such as MILF in Philippines, Laskar Jihad of Indo and Thai separatist movements to advance their personal, disparate causes of autonomy and retaliation against harsh persecution by their respective governments.
However, the stark similarity is derived from the existance of certain groups which aims to achieve a Pan Islamic state in the Middle East inclusive Israel such as Muslim Brotherhood.
On the other hand, Zionism aims to achieve a Jewish state ranging from modern Israel, to all of the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, large chunks of Syria, Jordan and Egypt as well as proportions of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey although the Israeli spokesman would deny this but admissible by rightist Israelis.
Antagonism among the Muslim groups also arises from their perception that their governments are facilitating the Zionist movements although this may be disputed.
Unfortunately, both entities desire the similar territories.
Originally posted by jojobeach:Any form of racism is a result of not understanding the cultures of others.
While you may insist that the airport securities should not have infringed on the religious rights of your Sikh friends... I'd like to remind you also that airport securities first priority is to make sure everyone onboard the plane are safe. They do not go through religious classes to understand all the taboos of global religion. And as a Sikh.. he is the minorities of minorities. Get what I mean ?
As a frequent traveller myself.. I also get random pat down and screened... and I doubt I look like a terrorist. Even a caucasian mother with a baby bottle of milk are told to either throw the liquids away or not take the plane.
Like many other travellers.. you do what you can to ensure a safe and uninterrupted travel. If I go to a Muslim country.. I don't walk around in my hot shorts.. or wear revealing clothings. It is a form of respect and also to ensure I comply with the general practise expected of an outsider.
So regarding the 1967 boundaries.. why do you think it is illegitimate ?
Due respect could be given to individuals. I would, most certainly assume, that the United States have bomb detecting technology to scan through his covered head or at the very least, tell him to open up in a private area rather than parading his long lucious hair in full view of others. Moreover, this friend of mine is a visiting fellow of Harvard. And some of the airport officials were giggling at his humiliation.
I mentioned that pre 1967 boundaries are UNDISPUTEDLY LEGITIMATE. Post 1967 boundaries are disputedly illegitimate dependng on which side you want to sit in. Numerous territorial scholars have questioned the legitimacy of Israel's current borders. Jewish intellectuals such as Avi Shalim questioned the legitimacy of Israel's post 1967 expansion, asserting that it conflicts with international laws of geopolitics. Moreover, the peace offer to Israel was supported by numerous centre and leftists of the Knesset but the overwhelming influence of the rightist and Zionist extremists ensured that Israel not withdraw to its legitimate boundaries.
In this respect, its is arguable that Israel is forgoing the safety of its citizens in pursuit of its ideological endevours.
I stauchly believe that a withdrawing to pre 1967 Israel would guarantee Israel lasting peace and security as what many analysts have deduced. Israel knows this. However, Zionist ideology prevents them from withdrawing and not expanding its territories. Thus, this gives one a hunch that a major war in the Middle East becomes preemminent. This is my assertion.
American media is heavily biased towards the Israeli. for instance, When Israel attacks another, the pejorative used to describe the attack is either preemptive or defensive. Such writings is difficult to fathom. Absolute Impartiality is improbable, however, blatant prejudice insults one's mind.
Originally posted by Jarhum:Due respect could be given to individuals. I would, most certainly assume, that the United States have bomb detecting technology to scan through his covered head or at the very least, tell him to open up in a private area rather than parading his long lucious hair in full view of others. Moreover, this friend of mine is a visiting fellow of Harvard. And some of the airport officials were giggling at his humiliation.
I mentioned that pre 1967 boundaries are UNDISPUTEDLY LEGITIMATE. Post 1967 boundaries are disputedly illegitimate dependng on which side you want to sit in. Numerous territorial scholars have questioned the legitimacy of Israel's current borders. Jewish intellectuals such as Avi Shalim questioned the legitimacy of Israel's post 1967 expansion, asserting that it conflicts with international laws of geopolitics. Moreover, the peace offer to Israel was supported by numerous centre and leftists of the Knesset but the overwhelming influence of the rightist and Zionist extremists ensured that Israel not withdraw to its legitimate boundaries.
In this respect, its is arguable that Israel is forgoing the safety of its citizens in pursuit of its ideological endevours.
I stauchly believe that a withdrawing to pre 1967 Israel would guarantee Israel lasting peace and security as what many analysts have deduced. Israel knows this. However, Zionist ideology prevents them from withdrawing and not expanding its territories. Thus, this gives one a hunch that a major war in the Middle East becomes preemminent. This is my assertion.
American media is heavily biased towards the Israeli. for instance, When Israel attacks another, the pejorative used to describe the attack is either preemptive or defensive. Such writings is difficult to fathom. Absolute Impartiality is improbable, however, blatant prejudice insults one's mind.
And so.. over territorial dispute... Israel deserved to be wiped out ? This I cannot understand. Many countries disputes over territory, but we do not see rockets firing all over the place.
Is it true that HAMAS is backed by the leader of Iran ( both believed in the total elimination of Israel) ?
Originally posted by jojobeach:And so.. over territorial dispute... Israel deserved to be wiped out ? This I cannot understand. Many countries disputes over territory, but we do not see rockets firing all over the place.
Is it true that HAMAS is backed by the leader of Iran ( both believed in the total elimination of Israel) ?
It is obvious you have a huge problem with perceiving. I mentioned that Israel pre 1967 boundaries is undisputedly legitimate. Before 1967, Israel was a state. Which means that Israel has the right to exist. Hamas and Israel animosity is not mainly due to territory but the blockade on Gaza which prohibited food and essential supplies into Gaza and Israelis constant problems with adhering to a truce. You may want to read this in further detail in my previous post.
It depends on what you mean by 'backed'. In the generic sense of the word, you might as well say that Hamas is backed by Norway. Because Norway recognizes Hamas (although incurring the wrath of the U.S) as the legitimate authority of the Palestinian territories and has contacts with Hamas officials.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
This poetic quote seems terribly romantic but it is aimed to facilitate an uninterrupted territorial expansion of greater israel. At its rate of illegal territorial expansion, for its neighbours to disarm will be a great god send to the zionists. However, this quote professes double standards biased towards the Israelis. No country in their right mind would disable their miliatry capabilities in view of a belligerent neighbour at its doorstepThus, I would disagree with your statement.
However, you seem to be an ardent supported of Israeli terrorism in full view and knowledge that so many inocent lives have been lost.
Any support for the Israeli onslaught should be construed as support for terrorism and disregard for innocent lives.
if thats illegal territorial expansion whats legal? how many countries that are capable of being seen on a map got their land through means that would seem "legal" to you?
israelis view their actions as self defence. by claiming israel to be belligerent aren't you being biased against them? why should support for self defence in our eyes professes double standards biased towards the Israelis when you've clearly made a stand yourself?
Originally posted by Jarhum:
You call me a nincompoop..Come on, I challenged you to a debate and you keep avoiding the challenge. A debate will prove who is the idiot. Once again, I challenge you to a debate in person. I will assume another avoidance of my challenge as an admission to defeat by you.
Would you engage me in an intellectual discourse?
debates never proved anything other then participants well armed with knowledge required for the debate. how intellectual can a debate be if the aim in mind is only to bombard each other with info while both sides are firmly entrenched in their own beliefs. plus the only times an idiot's proven to be one is the time the idiot accepts a challenge to a debate.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
It is obvious you have a huge problem with perceiving. I mentioned that Israel pre 1967 boundaries is undisputedly legitimate. Before 1967, Israel was a state. Which means that Israel has the right to exist. Hamas and Israel animosity is not mainly due to territory but the blockade on Gaza which prohibited food and essential supplies into Gaza and Israelis constant problems with adhering to a truce. You may want to read this in further detail in my previous post.It depends on what you mean by 'backed'. In the generic sense of the word, you might as well say that Hamas is backed by Norway. Because Norway recognizes Hamas (although incurring the wrath of the U.S) as the legitimate authority of the Palestinian territories and has contacts with Hamas officials.
OK. My bad.. Let me rephrased " Why do you think POST 1967 boundaries is illegitimate" ? Israel fought the war in many fronts. If a conquered land must be returned to its previous owner.. then what is the point of the existence of Islamic Separatists ?
Do you think if HAMAS were to step down and not insist on holding on to power.. willl there be a blockade ?
Surely.. if your neighbour constantly tells you he's gonna wipe out your family.. are you still going to bother opening the door to let the mail man deliver his mail through your back yard ?
"Backed " in this case means financially supported by Iran to achieve the same cause.
So after the six day war.. is it also true that thousands of Jews living in neighbouring states gets persecuted and their properties confiscated ? Now , how is it that such atrocities are readily accepted but Palestinian cries foul when Gazans gets pounded by Israel ? Double standard maybe ?
Isn't it like saying it's ok for you to rape someone else's sister because she behaved badly.. but it's not ok for others to rape your sister because she's your sister ??
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:if thats illegal territorial expansion whats legal? how many countries that are capable of being seen on a map got their land through means that would seem "legal" to you?
israelis view their actions as self defence. by claiming israel to be belligerent aren't you being biased against them? why should support for self defence in our eyes professes double standards biased towards the Israelis when you've clearly made a stand yourself?
Politics is about transforming illegality to legality. in one sense.However, Israel's continuous territorial expansion is not sanctioned by international law. If you argue that territorial expansion is justifiable through violence and illegal means, you shoud assert that retaliation is similarly condoned. But our purpose here is to promote peace and end this evil taking of innocent human lives.
However, I find it hard to link your statement of territorial expansion to self defence. You appear to claim that Israel defending themselves through territorial expansion which is a paradox. Expansion is an act of offence rather than defence.
Israel is a belligerent and its actions are acts of terrorism. Unfortunately facts may be construed as a prejudiced towards the disadvantaged party.
I do not particularly see your point. However, I do grasp your intention. The Israelis have killed innocent people intently as justified by numerous reports and sources from international bodies working from the war zone itself. Biasness and prejudice do not at all apply to accusing murderers of murdering.
As a matter of fact, self defence turns into offence when one purposefully attacks and murders innocent civilians. It is absolutely nonsensical for one to justify purposeful and disproportionate killings of innocent women and children as a need for self defence.
The Israeli elite should be tried for war crimes and genocide for its killings.
Anyways, I would like to ask you a question. What makes you support the Israeli stand that it is killing innocent Palestinians for self-defence?
Originally posted by Jarhum:
I stauchly believe that a withdrawing to pre 1967 Israel would guarantee Israel lasting peace and security as what many analysts have deduced. Israel knows this. However, Zionist ideology prevents them from withdrawing and not expanding its territories. Thus, this gives one a hunch that a major war in the Middle East becomes preemminent. This is my assertion.
and I staunchly believe that a withdrawing to pre 1967 Israel would do nothing. i don't believe they would give it up and say "oh well since israel's already given up "
not when you still have people calling for the total removal of israel.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Politics is about transforming illegality to legality. in one sense.However, Israel's continuous territorial expansion is not sanctioned by international law. If you argue that territorial expansion is justifiable through violence and illegal means, you shoud assert that retaliation is similarly condoned. But our purpose here is to promote peace and end this evil taking of innocent human lives.However, I find it hard to link your statement of territorial expansion to self defence. You appear to claim that Israel defending themselves through territorial expansion which is a paradox. Expansion is an act of offence rather than defence.
Israel is a belligerent and its actions are acts of terrorism. Unfortunately facts may be construed as a prejudiced towards the disadvantaged party.
I do not particularly see your point. However, I do grasp your intention. The Israelis have killed innocent people intently as justified by numerous reports and sources from international bodies working from the war zone itself. Biasness and prejudice do not at all apply to accusing murderers of murdering.
As a matter of fact, self defence turns into offence when one purposefully attacks and murders innocent civilians. It is absolutely nonsensical for one to justify purposeful and disproportionate killings of innocent women and children as a need for self defence.
The Israeli elite should be tried for war crimes and genocide for its killings.
Anyways, I would like to ask you a question. What makes you support the Israeli stand that it is killing innocent Palestinians for self-defence?
If only HAMAS don't fight like cowards.. the innocents will not be sacrificed.
Are you saying that if the Palestinian were to fight the war IN Israel.. the innocents will not be harmed ?
That Palestinian army are so noble and honorable that they will not touch NOR kill anyone in civilian clothings ???
That the women shall not be raped and children be left alone ?
The only way.. perhaps is Palestinian army carries no modern weapons. Perhaps this may be possible.
Originally posted by jojobeach:OK. My bad.. Let me rephrased " Why do you think POST 1967 boundaries is illegitimate" ? Israel fought the war in many fronts. If a conquered land must be returned to its previous owner.. then what is the point of the existence of Islamic Separatists ?
Do you think if HAMAS were to step down and not insist on holding on to power.. willl there be a blockade ?
Surely.. if your neighbour constantly tells you he's gonna wipe out your family.. are you still going to bother opening the door to let the mail man deliver his mail through your back yard ?
"Backed " in this case means financially supported by Iran to achieve the same cause.
So after the six day war.. is it also true that thousands of Jews living in neighbouring states gets persecuted and their properties confiscated ? Now , how is it that such atrocities are readily accepted but Palestinian cries foul when Gazans gets pounded by Israel ? Double standard maybe ?
Isn't it like saying it's ok for you to rape someone else's sister because she behaved badly.. but it's not ok for others to rape your sister because she's your sister ??
This is because U.N resolution 242 is crafted out of British ambiguiety. It leaves both the argument open. However, numerous academics have argued that post 1967 borders are illegitimate. Even so, Israel continue building settlements outside of its current boundaries. By saying so, does it legitimize any preemptive attack on Israel by its Arab neighbours or Iran? And Irans new capital will be Tel Aviv? International Law does not condone this.
Muslim separatists are not state actors.
Hamas is the legitimate elected government of Palestine. You have to understand that. FYI, it is Israel who started this war, not Hamas. Israel's genocide in Gaza will only produce more individuals who harbour extreme hate for itself. Even if Hamas do step down, trust me, more groups will form who will fight Israel.
If your entire family were brutally murdered, would you not make it your life goal to kill the murderers?
You have to understand that this war is not about Hamas. It is all about Israel. The Israeli elections are less than a month away, the IDF has to recuperate from its dignity lost during the 2006 hizbullah war and it sending a clear message to Obama. Note the Jewish distrust for your incoming President.
Jews were persecuted by vigilante groups and individuals rather by the state itself. However, the numbers were exagerrated as the extra space stole from the 6day war made room for settlements for these diapora Jews. Remember, diaspora is frowned upon by Zionism. Jews at the same time desired to migrate to their 'promised land'.
Double standards are practiced everywhere including your beloved country. China infringes on Tibet, America denounces China. When Israel massacres Gazans, it is for self defence. This entails a never ending argument.
Ahhh.. the shallow, obscure analogies again.
My point is if it were Hamas who goes into Tel Aviv and begin massacring its innocent civilians, I will most certainly denounce Hamas. I already have directed critisms at Hamas for intentionally killing 4 innocent civilians from its rocket fire. However, Israel deserves the lion's share of the criticms for intentionally killing more than 600 civilians, over 300 being children.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
It is obvious you have a huge problem with perceiving. I mentioned that Israel pre 1967 boundaries is undisputedly legitimate. Before 1967, Israel was a state. Which means that Israel has the right to exist. Hamas and Israel animosity is not mainly due to territory but the blockade on Gaza which prohibited food and essential supplies into Gaza and Israelis constant problems with adhering to a truce. You may want to read this in further detail in my previous post.It depends on what you mean by 'backed'. In the generic sense of the word, you might as well say that Hamas is backed by Norway. Because Norway recognizes Hamas (although incurring the wrath of the U.S) as the legitimate authority of the Palestinian territories and has contacts with Hamas officials.
Norway doesn't recognize the whole of hamas. its the military wing fighting and occupying in gaza now doesn't this mean they're not legitimate in norway's eyes?
if the current borders aren't legitimate in your views why would israel's pre 1967 boundaries be undisputedly legitimate when modern israel didn't exist at that point of time? because they were "backed"?
so if enough countries/people were to recognize israel's claims now should hamas give up fighting? join up with israel to be part of it?
Jarhum - "Due respect could be given to individuals. I would, most certainly assume, that the United States have bomb detecting technology to scan through his covered head or at the very least, tell him to open up in a private area rather than parading his long lucious hair in full view of others. Moreover, this friend of mine is a visiting fellow of Harvard. And some of the airport officials were giggling at his humiliation."
Bomb detecting technology ? Sure they do.. but not for scanning a turban.
And it doesn't matter who he is or what he does.. everyone .. goes through the same security lines at the Airport.
And sometimes there is a partitioned area near the security lines for sensitive travellers, although not EVERY airport has one. If he has to be escorted to a private room.. it's not very efficient.. the securities are already short handed. Since he has a special needs.. he should be more pro-active in handling the security clearance instead of insisting he has the right to board the plane unchecked.
I don't know what he did or if the security guards are actually giggling at him, but it is a personal decision to feel humiliated.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:and I staunchly believe that a withdrawing to pre 1967 Israel would do nothing. i don't believe they would give it up and say "oh well since israel's already given up "
not when you still have people calling for the total removal of israel.
Your stanch belief has no basis. My basis has underpining in scholarly assessments and deductions.
For instance, Ahmedinejad has been accused of saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map." This was translated by non native linguist of Farsi or Persian. When it was translated by a Canadian professor, he asserted:
Shiraz Dossa, a professor at St. Francis Xavier University, in Nova Scotia, Canada, argued in June 2007 that
Ahmadinejad has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation; he has never done so in any of his speeches on the subject (all delivered in Farsi/Persian). As an Iran specialist, I can attest that both accusations are false... What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust and the “Zionist regime’s” continued killing of Palestinians and Muslims. He has even raised doubts about the scale of the Holocaust. His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. And he does not really care what we in the West think about Iran or Muslims; he does not kowtow to western or Israeli diktat.
The 2002 Arab Initiative has publically declared the normalization of diplomatic ties with Israel in return for Israel withdrawing to its pre 1967 boundaries. This was signed by all 57 Muslim countries as well as Hamas Hizbullah and even Iran.
Do not assume that Israeli disregard and mockery of international law will have others to follow suit.
Jarhum,
It is distortingly inaccurate to pin Israel as the belligerent in the 6 day war when Nasser claimed, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," after mobilizing troops to the border. What does that tell you?
Resolution 242's controversy over a single word IMO is overhyped especially when it was the Security Council's decision to deliberately reject appeals to insert the word "all" before the "territories." It was a tacit understanding that territorial changes had to be made since all the belligerents were defeated.
On charges of murdering civilians, both Israel and Hamas must answer. They have both caused innoncent people to lose their lives. Then again, Hamas or Palestine didn't sign the Geneva conventions did they? Hence, if Hamas or its Palestinian militants cannot be tried in such fashion, how can it be that only Israeli military personnel be tried?
In any case, your charge of genocide would have failed instantly. To constitute genocide, one has to prove that a party has been systematically engaged in a process of targeting a specific race for EXTERMINATION. Lets refrain from muddling up words to make the Israelis look more guilty than they really are.
The Israeli state has the responsibility to ensure the security of its people. Any state has. I don't think you are not aware of that. Its not whether they are right or wrong in the first place, but that its an expected reaction from overt high-profile attacks carried out by Hamas.
Originally posted by Jarhum:This is because U.N resolution 242 is crafted out of British ambiguiety. It leaves both the argument open. However, numerous academics have argued that post 1967 borders are illegitimate. Even so, Israel continue building settlements outside of its current boundaries. By saying so, does it legitimize any preemptive attack on Israel by its Arab neighbours or Iran? And Irans new capital will be Tel Aviv? International Law does not condone this.
Muslim separatists are not state actors.Hamas is the legitimate elected government of Palestine. You have to understand that. FYI, it is Israel who started this war, not Hamas. Israel's genocide in Gaza will only produce more individuals who harbour extreme hate for itself. Even if Hamas do step down, trust me, more groups will form who will fight Israel.
If your entire family were brutally murdered, would you not make it your life goal to kill the murderers?
You have to understand that this war is not about Hamas. It is all about Israel. The Israeli elections are less than a month away, the IDF has to recuperate from its dignity lost during the 2006 hizbullah war and it sending a clear message to Obama. Note the Jewish distrust for your incoming President.
Jews were persecuted by vigilante groups and individuals rather by the state itself. However, the numbers were exagerrated as the extra space stole from the 6day war made room for settlements for these diapora Jews. Remember, diaspora is frowned upon by Zionism. Jews at the same time desired to migrate to their 'promised land'.
Double standards are practiced everywhere including your beloved country. China infringes on Tibet, America denounces China. When Israel massacres Gazans, it is for self defence. This entails a never ending argument.
Ahhh.. the shallow, obscure analogies again.
My point is if it were Hamas who goes into Tel Aviv and begin massacring its innocent civilians, I will most certainly denounce Hamas. I already have directed critisms at Hamas for intentionally killing 4 innocent civilians from its rocket fire. However, Israel deserves the lion's share of the criticms for intentionally killing more than 600 civilians, over 300 being children.
So what is a settlement ? A permanent community where PEOPLE lives is it not ?
If that land is not used for any residential nor commercial purpose.. what is wrong with having families living on it ? As long as they are willing to pay the same land tax as the Palestinian people to the Palestinian government
Because the settlers are JEWS ?
Originally posted by jojobeach:If only HAMAS don't fight like cowards.. the innocents will not be sacrificed.
Are you saying that if the Palestinian were to fight the war IN Israel.. the innocents will not be harmed ?
That Palestinian army are so noble and honorable that they will not touch NOR kill anyone in civilian clothings ???
That the women shall not be raped and children be left alone ?
The only way.. perhaps is Palestinian army carries no modern weapons. Perhaps this may be possible.
Perhaps the only way should be Israel be disarmed and U.N peacekeepers supervise its pre 1967 borders. Israel is guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and murder of women and children. Read Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.
Thusfar, no Palestinian army has fought within Israel. Arab nations in its previous wars with Israel are much comparatively cleaner than Israel in the number of war crimes committed. Thus, you may be able to deduce a probable inference from here. Israeli leaders have a list of war crimes committed hanging above them.
It is ludicrous Hamas should bear the brunt of the blame when the innocent Gazans are intently murdered by the Israelis themselves. I will emphasize this fact. Your argument is contradictory to rational thinking simply because of your prejudice possibly due to emotional ties to Israel.
Military strategist have stated that if Israel were to engage Hamas in a guerilla warfare, Israel will lose. The Israel "soldier" hides behind its helicopters and tanks. Any man would affirm that this is not a fair fight in its purest sense. Who are the cowards then?
I was re-looking through some of the targeting pod videos lately due to this discussion and I realized that on so many occasions, I would have personally directed the use of cluster munitions on the launcher sites. A single bomb's munitions footprint would have destroyed 3+ launchers in a single pass.
Instead, they were targeted singlely with precision guided munitions. I'm not trying to justify Israel's disproportionate response, but rather, that restraint has been shown while prosecuting legitimate targets within urban areas.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Perhaps the only way should be Israel be disarmed and U.N peacekeepers supervise its pre 1967 borders. Israel is guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and murder of women and children. Read Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.Thusfar, no Palestinian army has fought within Israel. Arab nations in its previous wars with Israel are much comparatively cleaner than Israel in the number of war crimes committed. Thus, you may be able to deduce a probable inference from here. Israeli leaders have a list of war crimes committed hanging above them.
It is ludicrous Hamas should bear the brunt of the blame when the innocent Gazans are intently murdered by the Israelis themselves. I will emphasize this fact. Your argument is contradictory to rational thinking simply because of your prejudice possibly due to emotional ties to Israel.
Military strategist have stated that if Israel were to engage Hamas in a guerilla warfare, Israel will lose. The Israel "soldier" hides behind its helicopters and tanks. Any man would affirm that this is not a fair fight in its purest sense. Who are the cowards then?
Every sovereign state has rights to maintain its own military force for security. There is no way the United Nations will enforce such an action.
Hamas and the Palestinians on the other hand, are not sovereign states. If anybody should be disarmed, it should be them.
Frankly speaking, between helicopters, tanks, vs women and children, I'd take the machinery anyday. I'm a coward that likes the protection steel affords, and that I really don't mind when bullets or rockets start pounding at them. I feel squirmy when using women and children as meat shields. =D
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Perhaps the only way should be Israel be disarmed and U.N peacekeepers supervise its pre 1967 borders. Israel is guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and murder of women and children. Read Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.Thusfar, no Palestinian army has fought within Israel. Arab nations in its previous wars with Israel are much comparatively cleaner than Israel in the number of war crimes committed. Thus, you may be able to deduce a probable inference from here. Israeli leaders have a list of war crimes committed hanging above them.
It is ludicrous Hamas should bear the brunt of the blame when the innocent Gazans are intently murdered by the Israelis themselves. I will emphasize this fact. Your argument is contradictory to rational thinking simply because of your prejudice possibly due to emotional ties to Israel.
Military strategist have stated that if Israel were to engage Hamas in a guerilla warfare, Israel will lose. The Israel "soldier" hides behind its helicopters and tanks. Any man would affirm that this is not a fair fight in its purest sense. Who are the cowards then?
Are you serious ? You mean the Arab nations treated Jews in their territory with due respect ?
Tell me is this true ?
"Immediately after Israel's victory, Jews living in the Arab world faced persecution and expulsion. According to historian Michael B. Oren,
mobs attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco, burning synagogues and assaulting residents. A pogrom in Tripoli, Libya, left 18 Jews dead and 25 injured; the survivors were herded into detention centers. Of Egypt's 4,000 Jews, 800 were arrested, including the chief rabbis of both Cairo and Alexandria, and their property sequestered by the government. The ancient communities of Damascus and Baghdad were placed under house arrest, their leaders imprisoned and fined. A total of 7,000 Jews were expelled, many with merely a satchel.[163]"
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Politics is about transforming illegality to legality. in one sense.However, Israel's continuous territorial expansion is not sanctioned by international law. If you argue that territorial expansion is justifiable through violence and illegal means, you shoud assert that retaliation is similarly condoned. But our purpose here is to promote peace and end this evil taking of innocent human lives.However, I find it hard to link your statement of territorial expansion to self defence. You appear to claim that Israel defending themselves through territorial expansion which is a paradox. Expansion is an act of offence rather than defence.
Israel is a belligerent and its actions are acts of terrorism. Unfortunately facts may be construed as a prejudiced towards the disadvantaged party.
I do not particularly see your point. However, I do grasp your intention. The Israelis have killed innocent people intently as justified by numerous reports and sources from international bodies working from the war zone itself. Biasness and prejudice do not at all apply to accusing murderers of murdering.
As a matter of fact, self defence turns into offence when one purposefully attacks and murders innocent civilians. It is absolutely nonsensical for one to justify purposeful and disproportionate killings of innocent women and children as a need for self defence.
The Israeli elite should be tried for war crimes and genocide for its killings.
sometimes offence is defence, territorial expansion would create a buffer zone instead of fighting in israel itself. sound ugly but given a choice i would prefer fighting in enemies territory and their civilians dying compared to mine.
which sounds harder? crossing the border and attacking israel or crossing the border and marching 200 miles before fighting starts? and especially in israel's possition they can't afford to take chances. they can't relax because a treaty's just being signed.
even if like you said it's not the hamas who attacked to break the truce, its showed there are people who would ignore the truce and strike at israel. either unable or unwilling hamas aren't stopping these people while crying cheat at the same time.
600 civilians hardly amounts to genocide. what happened if they can be considered war crimes would have to be claimed by hamas. these are losses which can be avoided by hamas. the reasons why they died had already been given to you a few pages back.
the israeli's never claimed they were there for "truth, justice and the american way". they're not there to throw candy at kids who pass their vehicles.
Anyways, I would like to ask you a question. What makes you support the Israeli stand that it is killing innocent Palestinians for self-defence?
your question is blantantly showing biased views towards israel without understanding their position. you're trying to say israel is kill innocent palestinians for self defence when they're not. i'm not saying it didn't happen but can you truly say israeli soldiers are going into gaza taking out a mother and her kids and going
"haha got another palestinian bitch! got headshots for her 3 bastards too!"
is that what you're trying to imply i'm supporting?
Originally posted by jojobeach:If only HAMAS don't fight like cowards.. the innocents will not be sacrificed.
Are you saying that if the Palestinian were to fight the war IN Israel.. the innocents will not be harmed ?
That Palestinian army are so noble and honorable that they will not touch NOR kill anyone in civilian clothings ???
That the women shall not be raped and children be left alone ?
The only way.. perhaps is Palestinian army carries no modern weapons. Perhaps this may be possible.
to Jarhum:innocent palestinian women and children wouldn't have died if hamas lined up all their men, stand in formation outside gaza and challenge the israeli forces that way.
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Your stanch belief has no basis. My basis has underpining in scholarly assessments and deductions.For instance, Ahmedinejad has been accused of saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map." This was translated by non native linguist of Farsi or Persian. When it was translated by a Canadian professor, he asserted:
Shiraz Dossa, a professor at St. Francis Xavier University, in Nova Scotia, Canada, argued in June 2007 that
The 2002 Arab Initiative has publically declared the normalization of diplomatic ties with Israel in return for Israel withdrawing to its pre 1967 boundaries. This was signed by all 57 Muslim countries as well as Hamas Hizbullah and even Iran.
Do not assume that Israeli disregard and mockery of international law will have others to follow suit.
even if you want to use scholarly assessments and deductions you must consider the source. Shiraz Dossa isn't well known for his unbiased views. if i haven't read wrongly he believes there's ethnocide against Palestinians. would you trust someone like that to translate what Ahmedinejad said?
The 2002 Arab Initiative means nothing, its unlikely to be followed through. its just an empty promise they can't keep. most likely they'll normalise ties while recuiting fighters for the next jihad at the same time. hatred is too deepset in the region. you can't snap your fingers sign some papers and hope it'll go away
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Perhaps the only way should be Israel be disarmed and U.N peacekeepers supervise its pre 1967 borders. Israel is guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and murder of women and children. Read Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.Thusfar, no Palestinian army has fought within Israel. Arab nations in its previous wars with Israel are much comparatively cleaner than Israel in the number of war crimes committed. Thus, you may be able to deduce a probable inference from here. Israeli leaders have a list of war crimes committed hanging above them.
It is ludicrous Hamas should bear the brunt of the blame when the innocent Gazans are intently murdered by the Israelis themselves. I will emphasize this fact. Your argument is contradictory to rational thinking simply because of your prejudice possibly due to emotional ties to Israel.
Military strategist have stated that if Israel were to engage Hamas in a guerilla warfare, Israel will lose. The Israel "soldier" hides behind its helicopters and tanks. Any man would affirm that this is not a fair fight in its purest sense. Who are the cowards then?
Let's face it Jarhum, disarmament is indeed the best thing to do. But if Israel is to take this route.. then it is also fair that all countries that poses a threat to Israel be disarmed too. Are the other countries willing to do that as well ?
Weapons are evil.. it's creation was for the sole purpose of killing and destructions.
Yes I agree it wasn't a fair fight from the beginning.
But isn't it kinda stupid for HAMAS to take on Israel with their home made mortars/rockets ?
If holding on to power is causing sufferings to your own people.. wouldn't a honest leader be willing to put down his pride and step down ?
Originally posted by Shotgun:Jarhum,
It is distortingly inaccurate to pin Israel as the belligerent in the 6 day war when Nasser claimed, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," after mobilizing troops to the border. What does that tell you?
Resolution 242's controversy over a single word IMO is overhyped especially when it was the Security Council's decision to deliberately reject appeals to insert the word "all" before the "territories." It was a tacit understanding that territorial changes had to be made since all the belligerents were defeated.
On charges of murdering civilians, both Israel and Hamas must answer. They have both caused innoncent people to lose their lives. Then again, Hamas or Palestine didn't sign the Geneva conventions did they? Hence, if Hamas or its Palestinian militants cannot be tried in such fashion, how can it be that only Israeli military personnel be tried?
In any case, your charge of genocide would have failed instantly. To constitute genocide, o"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Isrelne has to prove that a party has been systematically engaged in a process of targeting a specific race for EXTERMINATION. Lets refrain from muddling up words to make the Israelis look more guilty than they really are.
The Israeli state has the responsibility to ensure the security of its people. Any state has. I don't think you are not aware of that. Its not whether they are right or wrong in the first place, but that its an expected reaction from overt high-profile attacks carried out by Hamas.
Shotgun,
I beg to differ. Your justification that Israel is not a belligerent due to a single simplistic quoted rhetoric is grossly inadequate. And your attempt to cite inadequately speaks volumes on your intent.
Nasser said" "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel"
I view your intent to leave out the first sentence of his announcement to trade unionist as purposeful and tantamount to alter the discourse of the exact causation of the war.
Moreover, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that he found "Nasser's assurance that he did not plan an armed attack" convincing, adding that "Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war". Writing from Egypt on 4 June 1967 New York Times journalist James Reston observed: "Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war. But it has already accepted the possibility, even the likelihood, of war, as if it had lost control of the situation. In addition, Egypt planned to send its vice president to Washington for last ditch diplomacy attempts to avert a war on the day of Israel's pre-emptive strike.
However, Israel's insistence to proceed with a preemptive strike leading to a war was a transformative and political manovouer rather than purely a miliary defence one.
On resolution 242,
there are various interpretations of the ambigous, inconclusive declaration. However, you have adopted the pro-Israeli stance as a definitive direction of the resolution which reflects your prejudiced stand. There exist various perspectives and interpretations of this vaguely coined declaration. Academics would point to the essence of the resolution that neither requires Israel to withdraw nor permits Israel to retain the 1967 boundaries.
Palestine is defined as occupied territories rather than a sovereign state actor. Your reluctance to accept Israel's liabilities towards its war crimes is questionable. Numerous groups have accused Israel of blatant violation of the fourth geneva convention, notably Amnesty, UNWRA and several others. Israel themselves do not refute its violation of human rights, only to justify it with claims of self defence.
Does extermination requires the perpertrator to publically announce its intention in forms of rhetoric to justify charges of genocide directed at it? What Israel is doing in Gaza tantamounts to acts of genocide, I reiterate. Try asking Hitler was he responsible for acts of genocide against the Jews? He would vehemently refute the accusations. Any criminal would attempt to justify their wrongdoings and Israel is no different. I see no disparity between the killings of innocent civilians of a sovereign state and a non state actor. Do you imply acts of extermination of citizens would only then constitute genocide?
The president of the UN General Assembly has condemned Israel's killings of Palestinians in its Gaza offensive as genocide.
I am fully aware any state or individual has the right to self-defence. However, unlike you, I am not selective in its application. Unfortunaely, Israeli attacks, in this current round of events are not retaliatory nor a reaction. They were the perpertrators of this war. Refer to my previous article for my elaboration and substatiation of this.
I am tremendously appalled at your attempted downplay of the massacre and the gross violation of human lives and rights by the Israeli Zionists. In addition, I am pretty amused at your selective citation of information to further a flismy stand. I hope you would reconsider your stand for disregard for the precise cause of the massacre of innocents will do your values no justice.