Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   General Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Re: Israel (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=191436)

s|k 28 Jun 2006 19:21

Re: Israel
 
This country seems intractable and my country seems unwilling to do what's necessary to ease the tensions. I think the solution is for Europe to become openly hostile with their relationship with Israel. Not just diplomatic wussy bullshit sanctions and discussions about having discussions etc, but tough talk and maybe some military implied threats. I am always against war, but sometimes I think it's the only way Americans respond to anything. Seriously it would be a wake up call to Americans if they were forced to choose between London, Paris, Berlin and Tel Aviv/Jerusalem (or whatever their capital is).

Thoughts?

Mek 28 Jun 2006 19:25

Re: Israel
 
imho its 6 and 2 3's with the whole middle east situation. Palestine are not completely inocent in this and sometimes i feel they like to shoot themselves in the foot and dont think about the consequences of their actions before they undertake them.

although iam pleased that the palestinians are finally targetting military personell as opposed to bombing inocent defenceless people

Deffeh 28 Jun 2006 19:39

Re: Israel
 
Explain to me what other course of action your average palestinian has other than "terrorist" activities?

Israel is an immature state that has proven consistently not only that it cannot be trusted, but that it is almost certain to reneg on all agreements, past, present, and future.

While i certainly hold no love for Arabs or Islam, i have even less for Israel.

ceres 28 Jun 2006 20:35

Re: Israel
 
Israel need a muscle flexing exercise every now on then, completely surrounded by hostile states, attacked regularly by an almost invisible enemy, paranoia creeps in and at the first sign of trouble all hell breaks lose.

Whatever Israels motives for the attacks, one thing struck me, if a British soldier was kidnapped in similar circumstances(impossible i know!) we would have sent an envoy or two, a few emotive speaches by Tony B would be made and not a great deal would be done. For one soldier however, Israel are moving heaven and earth to get him back.

I can imagine Israeli's feeling a huge sense of national pride at the moment
________
Vaporizer Review

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 20:43

Re: Israel
 
I don't really have any sympathy for either party, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with what Israel are doing about this issue...

dda 28 Jun 2006 21:03

Re: Israel
 
When a group has an avowed purpose to destroy your country (as Hammas does) and regularly attempts to do so, it is not surprising when retaliation bursts forth.

It is like Tocatta and Fugue (obviously a group from the name) who has vowed to bring down English civilisation as we know it. The govenment has punished him by giving him a job.

Deffeh 28 Jun 2006 21:12

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ceres
Israel need a muscle flexing exercise every now on then, completely surrounded by hostile states, attacked regularly by an almost invisible enemy, paranoia creeps in and at the first sign of trouble all hell breaks lose.

Whatever Israels motives for the attacks, one thing struck me, if a British soldier was kidnapped in similar circumstances(impossible i know!) we would have sent an envoy or two, a few emotive speaches by Tony B would be made and not a great deal would be done. For one soldier however, Israel are moving heaven and earth to get him back.

I can imagine Israeli's feeling a huge sense of national pride at the moment

Surrounded by divided arab nations who are either
a/ Too weak to stand up to the American backed Israel
b/ Too indebted to agreements with America re protection for oil
... to back up Palestine. If indeed, they wanted to.

And great, superb. More nationalism! That'll solve the problem!


Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I don't really have any sympathy for either party, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with what Israel are doing about this issue...

Invading a country who have no borders and no homeland because you already took it away, using your advanced US funded military against... nothing, because your "enemy" doesnt have an army.

For what? The capture of one soldier?

Last i checked the palestinians were all captured, roadblocked in by their israeli oppressors.

dda 28 Jun 2006 21:19

Re: Israel
 
They are angry young men.

Dante Hicks 28 Jun 2006 21:38

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dda
When a group has an avowed purpose to destroy your country (as Hammas does) and regularly attempts to do so, it is not surprising when retaliation bursts forth.

I'm pretty sure Israeli aggression in the area didn't start after the formation of Hamas.

Nadar 28 Jun 2006 21:41

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek
although iam pleased that the palestinians are finally targetting military personell as opposed to bombing inocent defenceless people

You mean what israeli forces do every day?

Phang 28 Jun 2006 21:48

Re: Israel
 
when the British government stopped trying to hammer the Irish into the dirt, the IRA lost support. When the British government stopped paying brutal thugs to put Republicans in hospital and intimidate their families, bombs stopped going off in British towns.

Just sayin'.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 21:54

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Last i checked the palestinians were all captured, roadblocked in by their israeli oppressors.
I don't particularly agree with general Israeli policy, but I find it really difficult to give much sympathy to a group for who violence is always the first resort. Rescuing a captured solider seems a much more worthwhile effort than blowing up buses and restaurants.
Until either side backs down and starts being sensible, neither will be getting any 'support' from me.

JonnyBGood 28 Jun 2006 21:55

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
:(

That was a grim time for all of us. No one stops to think about the families of brutal thugs that went hungry that year.

Luckily they found employment in the general election next year so it all worked out for the best though.

JonnyBGood 28 Jun 2006 21:58

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
How are the Palestinians supposed to back down exactly?

Less suicide bombing might be a start I guess?

JonnyBGood 28 Jun 2006 22:00

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
There were a hell of a lot of suicide bombings prior to the intifada.. so I guess Israel must have had a different reason for shooting Palestinians at that time.

I'm not expressing support. I'm saying the palestinians could back down by carrying out less suicide bombing attacks.

Deffeh 28 Jun 2006 22:12

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I don't particularly agree with general Israeli policy, but I find it really difficult to give much sympathy to a group for who violence is always the first resort. Rescuing a captured solider seems a much more worthwhile effort than blowing up buses and restaurants.
Until either side backs down and starts being sensible, neither will be getting any 'support' from me.

What other options?

We seem to have ignored and belittled their democratic elections.

They have no means of "state "military resistance.

They dont have any organised external funding or diaspora.

Terrorism is pretty much the only means available to them to let the world know they still have a cause

s|k 28 Jun 2006 22:30

Re: Israel
 
The various involved parties right now aren't going to do shit other than what they have been doing. It's pretty simple I think. Isreal is in the wrong and a big bully. Palestinians are in the right but they attack civilians. The Palestinians could stop the bombings, but if they did Israel would disregard them anyways. Israel obviously doesn't give a damn about Palestinians, and nobody would be even talking about them if they hadn't resorted to terrorism. Israel is the main aggressor in my opinion, and they're not going to stop on their own and the US isn't going to stop them, so somebody has to. Here's Europe sitting on the fence not doing shit about anything. It's definitely not the Europe it was 100 years ago. Instead of being part of the international community it seems like Europe only cares about business and social issues within its geographical borders, sending token troops whenever something is happening on the international scale.

G.K Zhukov 28 Jun 2006 22:30

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ceres
Whatever Israels motives for the attacks, one thing struck me, if a British soldier was kidnapped in similar circumstances(impossible i know!) we would have sent an envoy or two, a few emotive speaches by Tony B would be made and not a great deal would be done. For one soldier however, Israel are moving heaven and earth to get him back.

One israeli is worth more than... well, you know. Since they define themself as "übermensch", just loosing one who can be saved is worth enormous ammount of effort.

Anyone remember how the germans acted when Heydrich got assasinated?

sjn 28 Jun 2006 22:31

Re: Israel
 
What exactly does bombing a power station and 3 bridges have to do with getting this soldier back?

Oooo controversial:- They probably saw it as good PR losing this soldier, now they can rally nationalistic sentiment and rush into Palestine on this false pretence.

http ://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5124872.stm

G.K Zhukov 28 Jun 2006 22:32

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
Well i think there was a ceasefire by Hamas for several months last year and now there are more Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

More than a year. Not that the Israeli army and airforce stopped attacking at any point during that time.

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 22:34

Re: Israel
 
Israel have the military superiority, they should back down first. Threatening them with military action would lead to a major outcry of antisemitism, and probably not lessen their already insane paranoia. Before resorting to force, perhaps try trade embargoes?

G.K Zhukov 28 Jun 2006 22:35

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I don't particularly agree with general Israeli policy, but I find it really difficult to give much sympathy to a group for who violence is always the first resort. Rescuing a captured solider seems a much more worthwhile effort than blowing up buses and restaurants.
Until either side backs down and starts being sensible, neither will be getting any 'support' from me.

Did you skip all your history classes, or were you born ignorant?
If the palestianians had done what you accuse them off, resorting to violence as a first resort, then they would have actually killed the jewish settlers as they arrived (and we are speaking before 1948 here).

(Sadly, they were to nice to do that)

s|k 28 Jun 2006 22:36

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaisto
Israel have the military superiority, they should back down first. Threatening them with military action would lead to a major outcry of antisemitism, and probably not lessen their already insane paranoia. Before resorting to force, perhaps try trade embargoes?

Anti-semitism went out of style like 60 years ago.

Tactitus 28 Jun 2006 22:47

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k
This country seems intractable and my country seems unwilling to do what's necessary to ease the tensions. I think the solution is for Europe to become openly hostile with their relationship with Israel. Not just diplomatic wussy bullshit sanctions and discussions about having discussions etc, but tough talk and maybe some military implied threats. I am always against war, but sometimes I think it's the only way Americans respond to anything. Seriously it would be a wake up call to Americans if they were forced to choose between London, Paris, Berlin and Tel Aviv/Jerusalem (or whatever their capital is).

I don't think Europe has much tough talk or implied military threats left in them (see Iran). All they have left are a few carrots but frankly those are a dime a dozen.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh
For what? The capture of one soldier?

Well turn that question around: what Israeli reaction were the Palestinians expecting when they captured an Israeli soldier? Hint

The Israelis don't negotiate for the release of their capture soldiers and they will mount rescue operations. The Palestinians know this perfectly well.

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 22:48

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k
Anti-semitism went out of style like 60 years ago.

You should tell that to the israelis...
They still use it as a weapon against organisations/countries that criticise them. Last I remember at the moment was Sweden

s|k 28 Jun 2006 22:53

Re: Israel
 
When Palestians take an Israeli soldier, it's called kidnapping. When Israeli's take a Palestian, it's called an arrest. Yet they're both the same thing really.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 22:55

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov
Did you skip all your history classes, or were you born ignorant?
If the palestianians had done what you accuse them off, resorting to violence as a first resort, then they would have actually killed the jewish settlers as they arrived (and we are speaking before 1948 here).

(Sadly, they were to nice to do that)

I really don't care about the history. My opinion is based on what I am aware of now (and I suppose during my lifetime), and they seem so bent on violence, that it lowers my opinion of their cause.
If, as could (but perhaps shouldn't , maybe you could clarify if I'm misunderstanding...) be implied from your reply, the (or at least 'a significant') cause of today's violence really is due to what happened over 60 years ago, then maybe it's time to 'forgive and forget', and see what happens- it might work, who knows?
If they want to carry on, as Deffeh says, in an attempt to keep people aware of what's going on, that's their prerogative, but no matter how much people like you decide to insult my intelligence, it's not going to make me feel sorry for them.


Quote:

Israel have the military superiority, they should back down first.
Why?

Dace 28 Jun 2006 22:57

Re: Israel
 
Well done Israel for killing Corporal Gilad Shalit.

"Palestinian ruling party Hamas has condemned attacks on the infrastructure and called for a prisoner exchange - which Israel has rejected."

So what with the option of negotiation gone if i was one of the militants i'd kill Shalit, dump him in a public place and tell Israel to go **** themselves. If Israel continue to advance into the West Bank it then becomes obvious that they're seizing more land (again), land they've just "given back", because you can't rescue a dead person and info gathering is best done with spies not a whole bunch of tanks.



Anyways ...

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 23:01

Re: Israel
 
Well, because Israel is the country with an army, that spends alot of its time playing an occupying force... and because it might, just might, restore some goodwill towards them from the international community.

sjn 28 Jun 2006 23:01

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus
/snip/
Well turn that question around: what Israeli reaction were the Palestinians expecting when they captured an Israeli soldier? Hint
The Israelis don't negotiate for the release of their capture soldiers and they will mount rescue operations. The Palestinians know this perfectly well.

I don't think this can be described as a rescue operation yet maybe more of a "flattening the country in preparation to mount a rescue"

"Edit: (General Question)": Also unless I am being dense there seems to be some certainty in a lot of peoples minds that they think the Palestinian government orchestrated and/or knew/carried out this attack themselves. Can you honestly hold an entire country to account for the actions of a small group(s) within that country?

It all just seems very disporportionate.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:04

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaisto
Well, because Israel is the country with an army, that spends alot of its time playing an occupying force... and because it might, just might, restore some goodwill towards them from the international community.

You said that because it had a superior military, it should back down first.
You haven't answered why.
Perhaps define what you mean by 'should'? As in 'morally', or 'it would be in its best interests to'?

G.K Zhukov 28 Jun 2006 23:05

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I really don't care about the history. My opinion is based on what I am aware of now (and I suppose during my lifetime), and they seem so bent on violence, that it lowers my opinion of their cause.
If, as could (but perhaps shouldn't , maybe you could clarify if I'm misunderstanding...) be implied from your reply, the (or at least 'a significant') cause of today's violence really is due to what happened over 60 years ago, then maybe it's time to 'forgive and forget', and see what happens- it might work, who knows?
If they want to carry on, as Deffeh says, in an attempt to keep people aware of what's going on, that's their prerogative, but no matter how much people like you decide to insult my intelligence, it's not going to make me feel sorry for them.

Your post impled that you were commenting on history. And now you say you dont care about history. A wiser solution is not to speak, when you know nothing about a subject.

Oh yes, I totally agree with you. The palestians are awefully violent, arent they. Why in gods name are they trying to attack their occupiers?* I mean, arent they happy with living in prisions, refugee camps and beeing treated like untermensch? People with brown skin are so demanding these days. I mean, Israel even allows them to live in their litte bantustans**, to elect goverments (and then we pretend we care about it ho ho ho) and to raise trial everytime they grab their land, kill someone in their family or occupy their houses.


*Just as the french during WWII, de Gaulle was really a bad man.

*Since you are probably not aware of the term, try to google for it or look at wikipedia. Hint: South Africa under apartheid.

Nodrog 28 Jun 2006 23:07

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k
Anti-semitism went out of style like 60 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov
If the palestianians had done what you accuse them off, resorting to violence as a first resort, then they would have actually killed the jewish settlers as they arrived (and we are speaking before 1948 here).

(Sadly, they were to nice to do that)


SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:07

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sjn
Can you honestly hold an entire country to account for the actions of a small group(s) within that country?

It all just seems very disporportionate.

I suppose there are a few cliched answers to this that someone with such beliefs could give:
'the people on the buses aren't the Israeli government'.
'we'd be belittling their democratic process if we didn't believe that the government were acting on behalf of the people'
etc.

Dace 28 Jun 2006 23:09

Re: Israel
 
BTW SYMM that was me who neg-repped you (i forgot to sign it)

Phang 28 Jun 2006 23:09

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I really don't care about the history. My opinion is based on what I am aware of now (and I suppose during my lifetime), and they seem so bent on violence, that it lowers my opinion of their cause.

for sixty years the Israeli government have been launching rockets into civilian areas and blockading/imprisoning/forcibly evicting the Palestinians, interspersed with occasional genocide (with Sabra and Shatila, the Israeli people demonstrated their collective guilt by making the war criminal in question a key figure in their government and eventually Prime Minister for five years). The Palestinians have responded with suicide bombs, the only weapon available to them seeing as military might is forbidden by Israeli blockades and effective government is forbidden by..Israeli blockades. People moan and cry because the Palestinians elected terrorists to government, but the Israelis have been doing that for so much longer. The difference between the two is that many Palestinians oppose terrorism and murder perpetuated by their side.

You'd have to be very, very stupid to think this is a conflict with equal culpability, and completely insane to think the Palestinians are more at fault than the Israelis.

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 23:12

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
You said that because it had a superior military, it should back down first.
You haven't answered why.
Perhaps define what you mean by 'should'? As in 'morally', or 'it would be in its best interests to'?

Both. In one sense, it is morally right; this can of course be disputed. I will repeat what I said above though, that I do believe it would be in their best interest to back off. The international community is not exactly becoming more friendly towards them because of their current actions.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:12

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov
Your post impled that you were commenting on history.

Which bit of my original post?

Quote:

Oh yes, I totally agree with you. The palestians are awefully violent, arent they. Why in gods name are they trying to attack their occupiers?* I mean, arent they happy with living in prisions, refugee camps and beeing treated like untermensch? People with brown skin are so demanding these days. I mean, Israel even allows them to live in their litte bantustans**, to elect goverments (and then we pretend we care about it ho ho ho) and to raise trial everytime they grab their land, kill someone in their family or occupy their houses.
Which bit of my post suggested I was in agreement with any of that?
I'm simply saying that as long as there is violence, I won't support them. That doesn't mean I support anything else instead.
The digs at some supposed lack of intelligence/education are getting tedious, how about you stop and try reading what I'm writing?

Yahwe 28 Jun 2006 23:13

Re: Israel
 
the initial 'proposition' was that europe should oppose Israel because america can not.

opposing israel would be easy. we can not oppose america.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:18

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

You'd have to be very, very stupid to think this is a conflict with equal culpability, and completely insane to think the Palestinians are more at fault than the Israelis.
Who's more to blame doesn't matter to me when it comes to whether a cause is worthy of my support. The actions of those supporting the cause matter far more to me than any provocation.

G.K Zhukov 28 Jun 2006 23:24

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
Which bit of my original post?

THE OMG PALESTIANS RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS FIRST MEANS.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
Which bit of my post suggested I was in agreement with any of that?
I'm simply saying that as long as there is violence, I won't support them. That doesn't mean I support anything else instead.
The digs at some supposed lack of intelligence/education are getting tedious, how about you stop and try reading what I'm writing?

I agree with you again. Let them just be killed. Its wrong to defend yourself.

sjn 28 Jun 2006 23:25

Re: Israel
 
:rolleyes:

o.k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe
europe should oppose Israel because america can not.

or will not?

Why can't Americans oppose "America"? - no offence but saying "oi Europe watcha gonna do aboud it?" sounds like a cop out.


Americans elected their Goverment, whom in turn decide foreign policy. Its called democracy.

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 23:26

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
Who's more to blame doesn't matter to me when it comes to whether a cause is worthy of my support. The actions of those supporting the cause matter far more to me than any provocation.

Do you ever listen to yourself? You are effectively saying that the actions of i.e. those who support Palestine on this forum matters more than which of the two opposing sides have a just cause.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:31

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

THE OMG PALESTIANS RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS FIRST MEANS.
In simple terms:
English. Is. 'To be'. Present Tense.

Quote:

I agree with you again. Let them just be killed. Its wrong to defend yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:33

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaisto
Do you ever listen to yourself? You are effectively saying that the actions of i.e. those who support Palestine on this forum matters more than which of the two opposing sides have a just cause.

Which bit of 'action' is the difficult bit?
Clicking 'Submit' doesn't count in my book...

Phang 28 Jun 2006 23:34

Re: Israel
 
SYMM, you are making a very bad argument here. You are saying you can't ignore the Palestinians because of what they are doing, but as soon as people explain that in context what they are doing is, while not justifiable, not something they can be blamed for, you clamp your hands over your ears and resort to bizarre arguments with a taint of circular logic.

Do stop.

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:43

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

but as soon as people explain that in context what they are doing is, while not justifiable, not something they can be blamed for,
I think people who support and carry out violent action can, and should, be blamed.

Kaisto 28 Jun 2006 23:43

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
Which bit of 'action' is the difficult bit?
Clicking 'Submit' doesn't count in my book...

The Palestinians are rather desperate, they are under occupation, their houses are being blown to bits by a superior military force. Even if you disagree with the way A FEW of them fight back, does this make their cause less just?

JonnyBGood 28 Jun 2006 23:45

Re: Israel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM
I think people who support and carry out violent action can, and should, be blamed.

Even in self-defence?

SYMM 28 Jun 2006 23:48

Re: Israel
 
I'll concede that 'be held accountable for' is perhaps better terminology.
(and so 'yes')


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018