[Monkeyleg]

In the last week, terrorist homicide bombers from Hammas, Islamic Jihad and other groups have killed 56 Israelis and wounded countless more. This scorecard isn't particularly higher or lower than any other week. It's pretty close to the norm.

Israel has a population of roughly 6.5 million people versus the US population of 286 million: 1/44th of our population.

If, in one week, terrorists killed 2,473 (56*44) US civilians and wounded another 8,000, do you think our government might be a bit concerned?

Would our goverment be concerned if that same number had been killed or injured the week before, and the week before that, and the week before that, ad infinitum?

GW is obviously pressuring Sharon to restrain from retaliation; Israel restrained herself quite well during the first Persian Gulf war. And certainly the new Palestinian leader needs some time to gain legitimacy amongst his people.

But, at what point do you say "screw the Roadmap, we have to retaliate for the bombings, wipe out the terrorist cells and their leaders, and give our people some security?"

[Preacherman]

Monkeyleg, it's not quite so simple... Any right-minded person rejects terrorism, and demands justice: but Israel is also guilty of killing Palestinian civilians, as "collateral damage" for its targeting of Hamas and other terrorists. Israel has also engaged in long-term economic measures against the Palestinians: we don't read too much about these in US media sources, but the details have been covered exhaustively in overseas journals. I'm not saying that Israel is more to blame than the Palestinians: I'm just saying that there is more than enough blame to go around, and both sides are equally guilty of intransigence, hard-line attitudes, and brutality.

As for the Palestinian terrorists, by all means hunt them down and remove them from society by any means necessary. They deserve no better. On the other hand, let's also stop illegal expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and end the brutality experienced by ordinary (non-terrorist) Palestinians at the hands of Israeli security forces. Both approaches will be needed if there's to be any hope of peace in the Middle East.

[DonQatU]

In the last week, terrorist homicide bombers from Hammas, Islamic Jihad and other groups have killed 56 Israelis and wounded countless more.

The Israelis usually kill Palestinians at a rate of about 1:3.

How many Palestinians killed during this period? Innocent bystanders among them?

Don

[Monkeyleg]

Preacherman, DonQatU: good responses. This post wasn't to elicit pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian responses, but rather to ask whether the constraints that Bush has put on Sharon will work.

A 1:3 Israeli/Palestinian rate would be abominibable if the Israeli's weren't the ones to suffer "first blood." The terrorists hit civilians, the Israeli's have some intelligence on who ordered the strike and they hit them. Civilians die as well.

This pattern has existed for 56 years. Any reason you think the new "road map" can change things?

[DonQatU]

but rather to ask whether the constraints that Bush has put on Sharon will work.

Constraints on Sharon?! Sharon has a free hand in the occupied territories and is dumping on the US.

Dub's got to appear that he can rein him in... for peace efforts.

But, the tail wags the dog.

Don

[Delmar]

How anyone could defend the actions of the "palestinians" (no such thing-an invention of the 60's) is beyond me.

Certainly, the innocents killed in chasing down the terrorists is not something to be wished for, but trying to equate innocents killed in the line of fire vs suicide bombers taking NOTHING but innocents is, to me, beyond discussion-apples and oranges kind of thing.

I can't for the life of me understand why Sharon ever agreed to this, and it is way beyond me how he thinks that it will ever come about.

The only way I see to stop the bloodshed is to shed blood-none of the agreements have ever made a difference to those who want to kill Jews.

Fine-you want to ignore every agreement you have ever made? That tells me that your word is worthless, so tell you what-we are going to completely conquer the territory you THINK we owe you and we are going to do a "Sherman" on your stupid little head. March in, burn the huts, the food supplies and anything of value and make them totally dependent upon Israel and then we shall see what an agreement is really worth.

Right now, any paper signed with these murderers isn't worth high grade toilet paper, and so long as the "palestinians" have the backing of the arab world-and make no mistake, they certainly do, and the Israeli government chooses not to put their boots on the chest of those who would murder in this fashion, they are going to lose more people in the long run, as will the "palestinians".

They do not, in my estimation, deserve political recognition at this time, as they cannot police up their own thugs on their own turf.

[DonQatU]

so tell you what-we are going to completely conquer the territory you THINK we owe you and we are going to do a "Sherman" on your stupid little head. March in, burn the huts, the food supplies and anything of value and make them totally dependent upon Israel and then we shall see what an agreement is really worth.

Lovely thoughts, Delmar! :rolleyes:

No wonder there are Palestinians filled with as much hatred as you!

Don

[Preacherman]

I sometimes wonder if the solution isn't some form of permanent division of the Holy Land by means of a wall, guarded by mine-fields, flame-throwers, Claymores, etc. Palestinians on one side, Israelis on the other, and anyone who tries to cross is shot at once - no questions asked, no second chances. Jerusalem and other disputed areas are walled off from both sides, so that only those who are genuinely neutral can be flown in by helicopter. Only when the two sides can agree to talk about things like civilized adults would they be allowed back into their respective holy places.

A pipe-dream, perhaps, but is there any better solution out there that has any chance of success??? :(

[Bigjake]

Any of you ever see that cheesy "Independence Day" movie with will smith and all them?? Remember the part where they end up in the lab and that big ol' alien is rampaging around killing people, and the president gets it to stop for a moment long enough to ask "Can there be a peace between us?" . The big mean alien growls no before making a suicidal effort to kill eveyone again, and is promptly gunned down by the secret service? this may be a lousy illustration, but that is what i see here. isreal bothers to even follow this futile road map thing, and all they get is killed over it, hell, the palestinians have admited just wanting a genocide, they don't care about any peace. we must deal with them like they did the alien critter.

[matis]

Preacherman I've read many of your previous posts and I respect you for them. But I completely disagree with your reply to this post.

Preacherman said:
___________________________________________________

... but Israel is also guilty of killing Palestinian civilians, as "collateral damage" for its targeting of Hamas and other terrorists.
___________________________________________________

How can the IDF avoid collateral damage when the Arab terrorists' policy is to hide among their civilian, in hospitals, use ambulances to transport suicide bombers, etc.?

The Arabs TARGET civilians including women and children. The IDF targets terrorists and also inflicts collateral damage. Do you equate the two?

Should they just turn the other cheek and let the Arabs murder them with impunity? Just give up and let the Arabs succeed with their desire for "ethnic cleansing? Where should the Jews go --Biribijan??


quote:
___________________________________________________
Israel has also engaged in long-term economic measures against the Palestinians:
___________________________________________________

Israel suffers, too, from closing off the borders to the "territories". But how else can she exclude the suicde bombers? As soon as she relaxes the border closings, there are stepped-up bombings!



quote:
_______________________________________________

As for the Palestinian terrorists, by all means hunt them down and remove them from society by any means necessary.
________________________________________________

Do you mean any means necessary so long as there is no collateral damage -- in other words any means so long as it isn't effective?


quote:
________________________________________________
TheOn the other hand, let's also stop illegal expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land,
_________________________________________________

What Palestinian land -- do you mean Jordan? You're an educated man, haven't you read the history of this area?


quote:
________________________________________________
and end the brutality experienced by ordinary (non-terrorist) Palestinians at the hands of Israeli security forces.
__________________________________________________


How, Preacherman? the majority of "Palestinians" hate the Jews, they support and cooperate and hide the terrorists. You are a man of the cloth. Don't you believe in the Bible? Was G-d wrong -- -was He "brutal" to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?


The "occupied territories" are only so because the Arabs forced the '67 war on Israel. They want ALL the Jews out of ALL of Israel!

Archeological digs reveal Jewish artifacts all over these "territories". This is Jewish land!

India had to transfer her Muslims to Pakistan. Israel must do the same. Let the other Arab countries absorb their "brother" Arabs.

Germany and Japan are now democracies because we pressed for total victory over them.

How much longer do you think the Israelis should allow the UN, anti-Semitic Europe, Russia (there's a Jew-loving country for you -- my mother was born there) and even the United States play their political games at the expense of Jewish blood?

Matis

[Delmar]

Thank you Don-its not about hate. Its about survival. You want to put meaning into political treaties which mean nothing, by all means go ahead.
The peaceful people on the other side of the fence certainly have the right to life, but the forces on the other side apparently do not have to answer to a lawful "Palestinan government, if there is such a thing. Lets hear your ideas on how to change this, and it doesn't belong to America, or anyone else but the people under fire there. Don't care about the past-this whole thing is way beyond that. The time is here and now. What you you have them do?

[Preacherman]

Matis, it's way, way more complicated than that. Israel was established by international fiat at the expense of those already living in the area. The repeated wars fought over its existence are not Israel's fault, I grant you: but they certainly are the fault of those who decided to establish that state there, without so much as asking the local Arab population whether they minded being displaced. Sure, most of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was Israel's - two thousand years ago - but in the interim, it belonged to many empires and many peoples. To say that it's Israel's land because there are Jewish archaeological remains there is nonsensical. One might as well say that Britain belongs to Italy because there are Roman architectural remains there!

Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced - forcibly - from their land, before and after Israel's independence, by armed action by Jewish terrorist groups and by the disruption of the war. Many hundreds of thousands more were displaced in the aftermath of the 1967 war. I don't blame Israel for fighting those wars, which were forced on her: but Israel has consistently refused to allow those displaced by war to return, or to compensate them for the houses and land it has taken over and opened to Jewish resettlement. As a result, the resentment and bitterness of those displaced has - quite understandably - grown ever more entrenched over the years. In addition, as you rightly point out, the Arab states around Israel have consistently refused to allow Palestinians to settle down in and integrate with their societies. It's suited them to use the Palestinian "refugee problem" as a political football in their games against Israel.

The Palestinian suicide bombers are guilty of the most heinous of crimes, and I don't condone their actions for an instant: but the Israelis are guilty of crimes just as heinous, including refusing to let pregnant women reach hospitals through their roadblocks (which has resulted in the deaths of more than a few women - this is documented beyond any doubt), blowing up homes belonging to the families of suicide bombers (most of whom were not even aware that their sons or daughters were involved with the extremists, and were not to blame for their actions), etc.

I don't blame one side more than the other: but there's more than enough blame to go around, and all sides are equally guilty of hatred, oppression and violence.

[Delmar]

These attacks are never going to stop until there is an all out war and the victor is clear.
All this stuff about treaties is diametrically opposed to the belief system taught, and there is nothing more dangerous than a group who believes in sacrificing themselves in the name of whatever.
If you have any doubts about that, talk to any marine or soldier who fought their way through the pacific in WWII. Faced with the same situation now, the liberal press would be messing their pants. As it is, the Jews get the bad press for chasing the bad guys while the terrorists somehow were driven to do this.

[chaim]

But, at what point do you say "screw the Roadmap, we have to retaliate for the bombings, wipe out the terrorist cells and their leaders, and give our people some security?" As one who has to check the lists of the dead online every time there is a bombing to be sure none of my friends who lives there is on the list, who has friends who check for family members, and knows of people who had the worst possible news, I'll let you guess what my answer is.

[Sodbuster]

they (wars) certainly are the fault of those who decided to establish that state there, without so much as asking the local Arab population whether they minded being displaced.
The local Arab population, with Britain's blessing, was supposed to drive the Jews into the sea. The Arabs were itching for a fight. Did anyone ask the Jews if they needed help? And if the Arabs had won, where would the Palestinians be today? Living free in the land of the Arab?

[matis]

Preacherman said:
_______________________________________________
Matis, it's way, way more complicated than that. Israel was established by international fiat at the expense of those already living in the area.
________________________________________________

Preacherman, just about EVERY country occupies land taken by force. Nobody asked the Indians if we could have their land.

So when we give California, Texas, New Mexico, etc. back to Mexico and the rest back to the Indians (they "stole" it, too, it turns out), then I'll feel worse about the displaced Arabs. Where is your compassion for the 100's of thousands of Jews who had to run from Arab lands? Why does Israel have to be perfect?


quote:
___________________________________________
Many hundreds of thousands more were displaced in the aftermath of the 1967 war. I don't blame Israel for fighting those wars, which were forced on her: but Israel has consistently refused to allow those displaced by war to return,
________________________________________________

Israel is democratic, the only state in the middle-east that is. But she will either maintain her Jewish character or she will die. How can she allow a right of return to Arabs who hate her and will constitute a demographic time-bomb to outvote and destroy her that way. You say it's complicated? Here is a REAL complcation.

I think Israel is stupid to allow Arab MKs who openly state their hatred and support the terrorists. Democracy, yes; suicide, no!


Preacherman, Arab resentment and hatred may be understandable, but how would you assuage it? They want Israel to die; nothing less will satisfy them. Given that reality, their resentment is all the more reason to transfer them to other Arab countries.



Complicated? Faced with survival or death, it's not al all complicated. Do what you must to survive -- or die.


For those who don't face these consequences, it is a luxury to play with complications. There is no PERFECT justice in the world, but to equate the two sides in this struggle is to abandon all justice.



Matis




__________________

[SIGarmed]

I can't blame Israel. They have no choice. What are they to do? Roll over and die? I do blame one side more than the other. The arabs.

The Jews took the west bank fair and square during the 6 day war in were none other than Egypt, Syria, and Jordan wanted to destroy them. Well it looks like they made a mistake.

What about the displaced palestinians from Jordan? Jordan just booted a large amount of palestinians from Jordan in 1994. Where is the outcry?

[Lone_Gunman]

The Palestinians danced in the streets and celebrated the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9-11.

Think about it.

The Palestinians danced in the streets and celebrated the destruction of the World Trade Centers.

There really should be no question who's side the US comes down on here.

[Delmar]

For most of us, there is no question as to which side we come down on. Personally, my time spent in Saudi answered my major questions and September 11th, 1991 removed any doubt. The Palestinians are in dire need of regime change and have been since day one.
I love listening to these politicos who say they will not bargain with terrorists. Yeah, right. Arafat was one of the worlds biggest. The rest of the world somehow got used to his face and mistakenly gave him legitamacy. The PLO was the middle east version of the Boyz in the Hood. Hamas is the same old stink in a different wrapper.

[Bruce H]

History gentlemen history. In 1967 Israel was attacked on more than one front by more than one political entity. They proceded to get organized and kick the guts out of those attacking. When it became clear that Israel was on a roll and didn't intend to stop world leaders worst nightmare bacame true. The world , for the most part doesn't want Israel off the leash. This country has more pressure exerted on it than any other. After they were attacked again and won they were told to give territory back and play nice. The only reason they put up with this foolishness is they can't fight everyone at once. There is tremendous prejudice against them from a lot of smiling faces.

[T.Stahl]

The Palestinians and Arabs don't know the word peace and will not accept a peace treaty. All you can expect from them is an armistice that will be broken as soon as they see a good opportunity to attack.
The only kind of peace they know and accept is the one that comes after a complete victory over their enemies.

Therefore there are only two possibilities for a lasting peace:
a) A complete victory by Israel over its enemies.
b) The complete destruction of the Israeli state and wipe out of the Jews in the Middle East.

a) is unlikely, because Israel is too small.
b) is not acceptable.

=> No lasting peace possible.

[Bigjake]

One thing i'm suprised that preacherman hasn't mentioned is revelation. Its the end of times boys, dust off the bibles and have a read if you want to know what is going to go down. there something about "the generation not passing from this world after the creation of israel. i forget the particulars, but its there. this is just paving the way for armagedon me thinks, the final battle.

[ZekeLuvs1911]

Gang,
All you have to do is go read Revelations in the Bible and you will know how this Arab-Israeli thing is going to pan out. Respectfully, just MHO. Thanks!

[2dogs]

Israel is also guilty of killing Palestinian civilians, as "collateral damage" for its targeting of Hamas and other terrorists

Preacherman, I'm disappointed. Don't they call this "moral equivalancy". Where there is none?

How can you (if you are) equate the deaths of Palestinians which occur as the result of defensive actions taken by the Israelis to what Hamas and their ilk do?

When did the Israelis announce that they will kill all Palestinians because they are on land that the Israelis want to put "settlements"? When have the Israelis gleefully sent their children off to purposely kill innocent men, women and children? When did Israel announce to the world that they would not be satisfied until all Arabs are dead and until all Arab countries were pushed into the sea? Did I miss these Israeli pronouncements?

No offense brother, but giving the slightest justification to barbarians makes me :barf:

I've said it before- here is a repeat- there will be no peace in the Middle East until the enemies of peace are eliminated. If that means taking out Hamas, Fatah or leaving one Palestinian standing, so be it- maybe that last one will embrace peace. The Israelis did not ask for this- the Palestinians did.

I hope the world is not as "understanding" when the "reconquista" starts in this country.

[ZekeLuvs1911]

Wow Jake,
You reading my mind? I need my tin-foiled hat put back on. :D

[2dogs]

P.S.

Maybe the Palestinians should stop demanding land for peace, and try offering peace for land. While they are still standing.

Isn't the definition of insanity (or stupidity) repeating the same actions and expecting different results?

[Bigjake]

just maybe...... ;) better put them tinfoils back on. for the rest of y'al, i may be a ornery SOB, but i firmly belive everything in that book. if you want to know whats goin down with that wacked place, look no further, pretty detailed description of the end of palestine and the rest of the enemys of israel.

[one-shot-one]

way to go bigjake, saved me some typing.
there will be peace in te middle east, it will last 3 1/2 years, thenthe lasting peace will come 3 1/2 years after that.
i don't believe that any usa prez. can broker this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

[Sir Galahad]

Well, you can believe in Revelations or Ragnarok for all I care. It's still nothing to base foreign policy on. That said, I support Israel 100%. Not because of any religious reason, but because they're right. Those that know, know that. Those that don't, will never see it.

[Hal]

Galahad,
With all due respect my friend, it isn't about foreign policy, it's about personal belief. I happen to agree with the other posters:
Good news is God is coming back.
Bad news is,,he's pissed.

[Bruce H]

Both sides claim to be men of the book. The problem is different books. Both are second hand information as remembered by the writers. We all know how accurate this kind of info is. The different books are the cause because there is no reason on either side.

Let Israel unleash the dogs of war and how ever it comes out will have to be better that the everyday killing that is going on now.

Oh yeah on the book deal which one the original or the King James?

See the light yet.

[Sir Galahad]

Hal, point is, religious discussion is not open for discussion on this board, IIRC. You and others here might all believe your God is coming back, but not everyone here does. There are, that I know of, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, and athiests on this board. Hence, the rules about religious discussion. I realize it is Christian belief to witness, and I respect that. But the rues are what they are. I think religion can come up in aspects of freedom-related issues, but not theological ones. I'm not a moderator, so I'm not sure what the guidelines are. But from my standpoint, religion has nothing to do with a sound foreign policy. If we based our foreign policy on certain religious texts, we might war with India just because they're Hindu and for no other reason. That's the problem with the way some people interpret religion. They view it as a license to kill ANYONE they don't like. My point remains, I support Israel not because of what some book says about them or because some God favors them. I support them because they took a cat's litter box and built a country worth supporting out of it.

[Bruce H]

Sir Galahad exactly. Same opportunities and one side had a very large amount of money. Not money right there but investment money available from like minded people. Why the great disparity in lifestyles and business? Single minded purpose is generally a bad idea. Others pass you by while you stew.

[Lone_Gunman]

Whether the US tries to stay neutral on religion is immaterial.

To those who hate us, this is all about religion. In their eyes it is a Holy War, whether we wish it was or not.

Sooner or later the US will have to realize it.

Remember you are their enemy because you are a non_muslim and an American.

In the end, they will kill you for that.

A religiously neutral person is just as wrong as a Christian or Jew to them.

Please note, I do not mean to paint all Muslims in a necessarily bad light, just the radical element responsible for the current wave of terrorism.

Sir Galahad, you have made the comment:

But from my standpoint, religion has nothing to do with a sound foreign policy

That may be from your standpoint, but it certainly is not from the standpoint of muslim fundamentalists.

[Bruce H]

And their in lies the solution. Anyone advocating killing another of these differences needs killed immediatley. I don't care which side, book sect or whatever. When they are gone they don't spread their hate. Rabid animals are dangerous reguardless of position in the food chain.

[SIGarmed]

2dogs,

Its not about land for peace. That is a ruse. They want the total dismantling(destruction) of Israel. They want the land all the way to the sea of Galilee. They could have had most of the land in the west bank, but the tyrants who control the arabs in that region won't let it happen because they had to agree to peace. If you're a palestinian and you say you want peace with Israel you are as good as dead.

[TheLastBoyScout]

The main difference in the violence that I believe gives the Israelis the moral high ground is that Palestinian terrorists generally only want to kill Israelis as a group, and prefer civilian targets.

Although the Israelis do end up killing more people, the way the have been doing it recently, i.e. targeted chopper strikes aimed at individuals, I do not believe to be anywhere near as objectionable as the homicide bombers' missions. Although the Israelis kill civilians, they do so in the process of attacking valid targets, such as terrorist leaders. This is wayy different from a Palestinian walking on to a civilian bus and blowing himself up.

[Bigjake]

Never said anything about basing foreing policy on religion. it would never work anyway, dispite making perfect sense. i feel israel should let them palestinians have it, if God is for them, we'll see it, they seem to have uncanny luck against huge odds thus far though. Israel should definatly not sit back and take it on the cheek. crazy extremists arent a threat to anyone if they aint breathing, and thats what israel ought to cocentrate on.

[DonQatU]

Although the Israelis do end up killing more people, the way the have been doing it recently, i.e. targeted chopper strikes aimed at individuals, I do not believe to be anywhere near as objectionable as the homicide bombers' missions.

Hellfire Missiles with loads of innocents around? Pretty disgusting if you ask me. AND THEY ARE SUPPLIED BY THE USA!

Let the Israelis and Palestinians wipe each other out if they choose to! But, don't let one side do it with weapons my tax money has paid for!

Don

[pax]

<Moderator Hat On>

Folks, if you wish to proseletyze or witness, you may do it via PM or email.

THR is not the forum for "my God can beat up your god" posts, nor for discussions of whose holy book trumps all others.

</Moderator Hat Off>

pax

I need not shout my faith. Thrice eloquent
Are quiet trees and the green, listening sod;
Hushed are the stars, whose power is never spent;
The hills are mute: yet, how they speak of God!
-- Charles Hanson Towne

[johnpmahler]

The thing that realy annoys me about the PLO / PA and it's various apollogists is that they insist, without actually coming out and saying it, that the PLO/PA/etc. shouldn't have to deal with, or be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

For example; many Palistininian groups have used ambulances marked with the red crescent to transport arms, combantants, bombs, suicide bomb belts, and the like. Even the red cross, notorious for turning a blind eye to this kind of thing by the red crescent has complained. As far as I understand it, this counts as a war crime under international law (could be wrong, feel free to correct me).

But when the IDF now has to stop and practicaly strip search every ambulance going through a check point it's the evil Israeli's fault that people don't get to hospital on time.

Local PA forces use an olive grove to snipe at civilians over the course of a month and the IDF comes in and cuts the trees down, once again it's the evil Israelis depriving a family of their livelihood.

It is a war crime to hide armed forces amongst civilians. Hamas (for example) is an armed organization with the avowed goal of destroying the state of Israel. It stores munitions, bomb making facilities, fighters, and the like, as thouroughly mixed in with the civilians as it can. The goal is to force the IDF to choose between either not striking at all or killing civilians.

It's not that Hamas and the like don't care about civilian casualties, they do. They want them to be as high as possible.

Just remember when folks talk about that 1:3 ratio, it's coming from the same place as the 13 kids a day....btw, they include the homocide bombers and arabs killed by their fellow arabs on the '3' side of the ledger...


So when folks start that nauseating 'cycle of violence' b.s., just remember that it all starts with the various PA factions deliberately killing non-combatents (a war crime, ah Belgium where art thou ????) and the IDF attempting to take out/kill/disrupt a military opponent.

A couple random notes 'cause this is getting long...

Some people love to drag out the 'Jewish Terrorists' (IRGUN/Stern/etc) and present them as some kind of counterweight to the Hamas, Al Asqua, Fatah organizations and the like. When you hear someone try this, ask them just how many civilians the IRGUN targeted during it's existence? The Irgun/Stern organizations took on the British army and it's security forces. They blew up planes, pipelines, military posts...they never set off a bomb in the middle of London.

The settlements, be they a wise idea or not, are in fact not illegal under international law. The land they are being built on was, for the most part, state land owned by the Ottomans, administered by the British under the Mandate, annexed in violation of international law by Jordan, and while the PLO/PA/etc have always claimed it as theirs, they have spurned every U.N. offer of soveirngty (sp?) to have come along. The various UN resolutions (242 et all) have demanded that Isreal exchange SOME of the land they took from Jordan, Syria and Egypt in exhange for a genuine peace. The exact extent of the land so swapped was to be arrived at by negotiation between the parties.

sorry to get so long winded

John

[Cosmoline]

If Mexican terror groups were killing thousands in the US, demanding a return of "Aztlan," we would not hesitate to create a free-fire buffer zone a hundred miles thick along the border. We expect more from Israel than we would be willing to give.

Besides, the only good terrorist is a dead one. Any agreement on Israel's part to pull back settlements in exchange for a cease-fire would be caving in to terrorist demands.

[seeker_two]

If it wasn't for recent (i.e. last 60 years) Jewish cultural history, the Palestinians would not have remained a problem for long. THAT is the only thing that has prevented Israel from enacting a "final solution"...

[bobdobalina]

Somewhat related to this toping is a thought I've often had regarding this.
Everytime I see pictures of 8-16 year old boys throwing rocks at an Israeli tank I wonder where the parents are. I know if I had a child I would not allow them to go anywhere near a tank that has live ammunition, etc. Not only can you get yourself killed by being amongst armed "militants" using you as a human shield, those things can run you over inadvertantly if you step infront of them even with the best of intentions (anyone remember the reporter killed before the iraq war trying to take a picture of a tank?) Anyways, I place the blame that these children die squarely on the parents who willingly allow their children to taunt armed soldiers, attack armed soldiers, stand in the way of tanks and tractors, mix with AK-wielding militia men, etc.

[2dogs]

If Mexican terror groups were killing thousands in the US, demanding a return of "Aztlan,"

Cosmoline

So far they've opted for the "right of return" method of take over- but you are right, no way would we stand for what we expect Israel to.

[CMichael]

Where to start.

First off Palestine is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship. The terrorists control the schools. They have indoctrinated children who are now adults that all the Jews must be killed. Therefore, the population is evil too by now.

The goal of the PA and the rest of the terrorists is the complete destruction of Israel.

Yes there is a collateral damage caused by Israel. However, Israel has a duty to protect it's citizens and it cannot do so without collateral damage.

This has already been stated but there is not moral equivalency between those that target civilians and those that do not. All war has collateral damage.

Also, Palestine doesn't exist. It was created originally by the UN, and the arabs never accepted the split and invaded Israel.

Arabs were not displaced. When Israel first started it bought the land that people settled in.

Terrorists cannot be reasoned with. They must be destroyed.

[HBK]

If the Palestinians weren't so close to Israel, I would recommend the use of nuclear weapons.

[NeverAgain26]

Preacherman, I too have read your posts and agree with a lot of them but I have to differ with you on this one, in particular with your point that says Israel has imposed economic sanctions on the Palestinians.

Pre-Intifada, Israel had issued 144,000 work permits for Palestinians to come into Israel and work. If one person feeds 10 you are looking at about 1.5 milllion people (or half the Palestinian population) living off of the Israeli economy.

If any one of us had in a group of our workers an unknown number of people who were sworn to kill us and ours and were willing to blow themselves up to prove it, we would not let those workers in the door and find other workers who were not a threat; no matter how much those workers needed to eat.

But that's hardly called imposing economic sanctions. Israel is merely not letting them into the country because they are a security threat. Israel eased up a number of times but got the same problem and closed up again.

It is not like Israel is going around dehumanizing people in their areas at random. Are there check-points people have to pass to to get into Israel to work? Yes.

Is Israel being cautious at these check-points? Extremely.

Is there room for abuse at these check-points. Decidedly, but probably nowhere near the level of abuse anyone of us might heap on people who bred homicide bombers and came daily to threaten and take the lives of our loved ones.

All said, it's a tough nut to crack. I know for a fact there are decent, hard-working Palestinians out there who only want to get to work and get home to their families, like all of us. I think a lot of them are held hostage by their leaders and are helpless to do anything about their terror problems. IMHO, I think the Israelis should be encouraged by our U.S. Gov't to take care of it for them, for the Israeli's sakes and for all concerned.

Terror is terror and it needs to be rooted out so peace has a chance.

NA26

[CMichael]

What I find rediculous is that the US, the UN, the EU, and even Israel has given money to the PA.

For what purpose? To finance terrorism?

The PA is a brutal dictatorship. They care nothing about the population

[Derek Zeanah]

How can the IDF avoid collateral damage when the Arab terrorists' policy is to hide among their civilian, in hospitals, use ambulances to transport suicide bombers, etc.?

The Arabs TARGET civilians including women and children. The IDF targets terrorists and also inflicts collateral damage. Do you equate the two?
A few months ago there was a situation where the IDF found out which apartment complex a terrorist leader was staying in that night. Cool, take his butt out, right?

The US would do something like send in highly-trained guys in body armor to capture/kill the dude, and might be insensitive to the feelings of the other people in the apartment complex as they're thrown against the wall and handcuffed. That's acceptable.

The Israeli solution was to drop a 1,000 lb bomb from an F16, killing 22 civilians (including 7 children) in addition to the bad guy they were after. That's simply not acceptable -- there is no justification for the slaughter of civilians, especially when there are other options.

The Israelis said they were satisfied with the solution to that particular problem, by the way.

Now, how would you feel about "Israel's Security Interests" if you lived in an apartment complex in that area?

I don't have a dog in this fight -- I think they're both losers -- but you've got to at least try and understand the opposing point of view. Homework question: spend 3 hours reading about the situation from the palestinian side, then report back whether you'd rather:
Be a black man raising a family in Birmingham Alabama in the late-50's and early sixties.
Be a palestinian man (even a Christian palestinian man if you choose) raising a family in the situation we're looking at here.

[SIGarmed]

Derek Zeanah,

Sorry but your story doesn't get any sympathy from me. The story from the other side is propoganda plain and simple, under the guise its about land. The terrorist groups in the area won't even deny it. Its constantly front page news how they want the dismantling of Isreal, therefore their propoganda machine is in full effect. They're hoping people out there buy it. I suggest you do some reading regarding history yourself. I suppose you're agains't the U.S. striking at terrorists too, judging by your pro terrorism propoganda. Hello! Their leadership doesn't mind the bloodshed, no matter what they get to spin propoganda their way. Thats the whole point in locating bomb factories in civilian area's. I guess the liberal media drumb beat is starting to work.

[ahenry]

Now, how would you feel about "Israel's Security Interests" if you lived in an apartment complex in that area? I’ve lived next to some pretty scummy people. If I ever thought their actions were might infringe on my “pursuit of happiness” I can assure you that one of the two of us would have found a new home. In a quick hurry. Even with those less than desirable neighbors I had no difficulty in making my views known and making them unwelcome. I never even got to the point of working with the authorities to eliminate the problem but I could have. I neither owe nor feel any allegiance to criminals and the Palestinian people shouldn’t either. The million dollar question is do they and if so why...

[CMichael]

Derek the bomb was dropped when Israel determined there were the least people

Unfortunately, these people surround themselves among civilians. That is intentional. It's not so easy to have a raid when the citiy is controlled by terrorists as done in Gaza.

I seem to recall the US shooting missiles at terrorists as well.

I don't consider them both losers. There is a right side and a wrong one. There is a difference between good and evil.

It would nice if the terrorists confine themselves at a particular time and date at a specific spot for capture. But they don't.

Derek if there is collateral damage because of the terrorists the onus is one the terrorists who use the civilans as human shields.

[Spot77]

Man I'm glad I found this thread. I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and today I caught a CSPAN radio show where people were calling in on this exact topic.

You'll find it interesting that as best I can remember, about 10 out of 12 callers were for stting up a sovereign Palestinian state. Several callers were older Jewish folks, and they even shared this thought. I was amazed at this; it seemed to contradict what I thought the general consensus of the Jewish population feels on this matter.

We all know that the media influences 90% of what we think we know, and it's difficult at best to try to develop an opinion based on real facts since we get most of our information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources, and that info is always skewed by the person reporting it.

So one of my thoughts while driving today.....Do we hear the opinions of most Palestinians or do we hear the opinion of their most outspoken government officers? Do the majority of Palestinians want the total destruction of Isreal, and if they say they do, is it only because of the fear of reprisals by groups like Hamas?

Everybody is posting some great thoughts, and I'd love to hear more from people who have lived there or have friends and relatives in the region.

[Monkeyleg]

Spot77, there is a "peace movement" that is more alive and well in Israel than our peace movement here in the US, and I think their motives are more pure. They've witnessed decades of terrorist attacks on Israel and are willing to give up land won during the '67 war if doing so would end the attacks.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that they have counterparts in the Palestinian-occupied areas.

But this just isn't going to work. Bush can only hamstring Sharon for so long. Until the Palestinians themselves kick the terrorists out of their "country," there will be no peace.

I'll give some grudging respect to those posters who've tried to equate the two sides but, if somebody was attacking my neighborhood every week and killing my friends and family, I'd want to kill the attackers and everyone associated with them.

Let's face it: none of us in the USA have experienced 56 years of constant terrrorism. After just one major attack many on this forum were ready to go nuclear.

But, if you're asking for solutions to the problem, I just happen to be a little short on that commodity today.

[bobdobalina]

Anybody remember the massacre that wasn't in Jenin?

The Israelis used ground troops in street fighting so as to avoid civilian casualties. What did they get? Ambushed soldiers many of whom were killed, and the international press ranting about a massacre of civilians that did not exist. They are dammned if they do and dammned if they don't.

Also, the Palestinian Authority is not some sort of knight in shining armor organization as some previous posters seem to think. There have been many palestinians summarily executed by the PA for supposedly collaborating with Israel. No trial, no judge, no jury...just a bullet to the back of the head. I know I would rather be a black man in the 50's as one previous poster mentioned, because at least back then there was little to fear from your own people.

[Spot77]

Monkeyleg, you're right....Terrorism has no place at the bargaining table. The first step is an impossible one: Terror groups have to voluntarily disband (impossible) or they have to be destroyed.

I'm having trouble developing a solid opinion in favor of one side or the other. I am Pro-Israel; They've been a great U.S. ally and deserve what they've earned.

But I also think it's time the Palestinian people had a place to prove themselves; that they can function as a self sufficient, terror-free (or as close as possible in this modern world) nation.

I think part of America's problem is that our culture is 100% different than anything in the Middle East, and we have trouble accepting or understanding how other cultures work and what is acceptable to them. And our media sources suck at providing us with accurate information from both sides of the issue.

I suppose that's why I spend more time on THR than CNN.com now.

[Derek Zeanah]

I suppose you're agains't the U.S. striking at terrorists too, judging by your pro terrorism propoganda.I guess that's one way to look at it. The other way is to make a declarative statement, something like intentionally killing innocent civilians is evil. That's mine. This is a big ideological debate with a bunch of people, and it's a religious issue with others (whether muslim, jew, or christian), and it's an issue of "what best serves our national interest" to still others.

I just believe we've got no business backing anyone who thinks it's OK to kill civilians in the name of politics. Especially children. Don't care the religion of the kids, or their nationality, or their skin color, or whether they're male/female. It's wrong. When my country stands behind another that supports those sorts of actions, that makes us wrong, too.

To me, that makes us wrong to get involved on the side of either party. But then, I won't "vote for the lesser evil" in elections either, so I'm one of those irrelevant people on the sidelines.

:rolleyes:

Derek if there is collateral damage because of the terrorists the onus is one the terrorists who use the civilans as human shields.But they don't seem to be trying other options. If it were the US working that up we wouldn't intentionally demolish the building with people in it. Other options included:
Sending in Israel's version of Delta Force to end the issue with a bunch of head-shots.
Quietly evacuating the rest of the building before blowing it up.
Positioning snipers to cover all exits and decapitate the guy as he steps out in the morning to get to his car.
Place a claymore so that it covers the route they'll take to get to the car.
Prepare staged accidents to block traffic at every nearby intersection. When he tries to drive off, stop traffic and hit his car with a Hellfire from an Apache 4 blocks away.
Whatever else you can come up with.

Some of those options are better than others. What's not OK is saying it's ok to kill a half-dozen children and a dozen adult civilians as long as you get your guy. Twenty-some-odd civilians are still dead, and to me it makes no difference that they were killed by a bomb dropped from a US-made aircraft instead of by a guy with semtex strapped to his chest.

Dead is dead. And it's still an attitude of "it's ok to kill noncombatants as long as we further our political agenda." The fact that they're Jews doesn't make it right.

[johnpmahler]

The Shin Bet/IDF/et all have done just about all of those operations you have suggested. Many of them with greater or lessor degrees of success.

The various PA factions blame over half of all of the 'work accidents' (oops I dropped the bomb!) on the Israeli's, they do surround houses in a suprise move and call on folks to come out with their hands up, and all of the other options.

The Israeli's go much farther out of their way to avoid collateral damage than any other country on earth, many would say they go too far.

But many of the various options you describe assume that the bad guy is on friendly turf or otherwise accesable, not in the middle of a city of 3 million very hostile people.

Imagine the IDF dropped in with air mobile troops, supported by gunship helecopters and tried to 'surround' the building....now picture the civilian casualties as the various militia factions opened up from every street corner and window in the middle of a major city!

John

[chaim]

But they don't seem to be trying other options. If it were the US working that up we wouldn't intentionally demolish the building with people in it. Other options included... Yeah, then they could be as effective as the Rangers and Delta Force were in Mogadeshu. Yes, they might get their guy, but they might not. They also would suffer massive losses as would civillians and militants in Gaza and the numbers of casualties would probably be far greater than those lost in the missle strike. As pointed out before, this city wasn't under Israeli control- it was one of the most hostile parts of the planet. Sometimes sitting in the comfort of your own home, sitting at your computer you think you know more than the experts. We all do that. However, in this case Israel's only choice was launch the missle and kill a guy responsible for hundreds of Israeli deaths in the past few years and thousands of deaths and woundings over the past decade but also killing some civillians or they could have let it go and let the guy get away to continue planning operations. Not much of a choice, but I believe they did the right thing.

[Derek Zeanah]

However, in this case Israel's only choice was launch the missle and kill a guy responsible for hundreds of Israeli deaths in the past few years and thousands of deaths and woundings over the past decade but also killing some civillians or they could have let it go and let the guy get away to continue planning operations. Not much of a choice, but I believe they did the right thing.Then there you go. Once all is said and done, you believe it's OK to kill innocents if you're doing enough "good" in the process. The ends justify the means.

Not an uncommon viewpoint. It's just not one I share.

[chaim]

Not so much "the ends justify the means", more a matter of the world often being in shades of gray and not black and white. Sometimes you are presented with a choice between bad and worse and I'd choose bad over worse.

IMO, if you have the opportunity to stop (be it kill or arrest) someone responsible for hundreds of recent deaths and a thousand or more killings and maimings over about a decade and you do nothing you are at least partially responsible morally for what he does later. It was clear this man was still in the "business" of terrorism and was going to plan and execute more terrorist attacks. As unfortunate it is that innocents die, that is only a bad choice, worse is doing nothing and letting the man kill and maim hundreds and maybe thousands more before you can do anything again to stop him. Also, keep in mind, as a leader of the terrorists he was a legitimate military target. It is a war crime to put military targets (including offices and lodging for combatants) in the midst of civillians. The legal and ethical blame for the civilian deaths lies with those who try to use Arab women and children as their "human shields".

[matis]

You do an excellent job of analyzing a difficult moral dilemna that is enthusiastically exploited by those so disposed, to indict Israel.

But that's an old story, isn't it?

You have MUCH more patience than I do.


Best,



Matis

[Derek Zeanah]

As unfortunate it is that innocents die, that is only a bad choice, worse is doing nothing and letting the man kill and maim hundreds and maybe thousands more before you can do anything again to stop him. I'm not saying that he wasn't a bad guy, or that Israel was wrong to attack him (though we could discuss the down side to state-sponsored assassination, but that should be another thread.), or anything like that. I'm saying that throwing thousand-pound bombs from F16's at apartment complexes that are occupied by civilians that have no idea that Mr. Super Bad Evil Guy is staying as a house-guest of their neighbor is morally wrong when you have other alternatives.

I find it extremely difficult to believe there were no alternatives in this case. It might have been an alternative that would have risked the lives of a dozen of the IDF's best, but if it existed that would have been the moral course.

Intentionally killing innocents is wrong, and in my book it ranks toward the bottom of the list -- just above torturing innocents for fun before you kill them. The palestinians are wrong to target shopping malls with their suicide bombers, though I'd support their right to walk up to a roadblock and try to blow up uniformed IDF guys since, as you say, this is a "war." I'll also support Israel's policy of killing those they claim are enemies without a trial, provided they have safeguards in place to insure the policy isn't abused, and they take every reasonable precaution to protect the lives of everyone not directly involved in the conflict.

So far, they've refused to do so. Jerry Pournelle tells a story about a friend of his who worked in Palestine/Israel/Somewhere. He was a halfwit, and a christian, and he had a job sweeping the floor at some church in the middle of that conflict. One morning he was shot in the head on the way to work because he wasn't smart enough to understand that the Israelis said not to go into the area that morning. That also qualifies as going too far -- that just ain't right.

Hence, my position: the whole situation sucks, and there's no-one who even appears to be trying to do the right thing. I think we're wrong to back any side but the side of those caught in the cross-fire. And maybe not even them, as they seem to support the actions of one side over the other...

:(

[Preacherman]

I'd like to commend most of the posters on this thread for remaining polite, despite the topic being relatively inflammatory.

For those who disagree with me (and with Derek), please remember that I don't condone the Palestinian terrorists' actions, even though I also don't condone the Israelis' counter-actions. I'm with Derek in holding that any attack that kills innocent bystanders is morally wrong and cannot be supported. I agree that there are shades of gray, and that sometimes "collateral damage" is unavoidable - but that doesn't make it morally right!

As I said before, there is an abundance of evidence (mostly unpublished in the USA because of the pro-Israel stance of most news media, who know that they would be pilloried in public if they gave too much publicity to the "other side") that Israel has itself engaged in actions that can only be described as atrocities. This does not mean that Israel itself is evil: I support its existence, and fully support the stopping of Palestinian terrorism, by force if necessary. However, the end does not, and never will, justify the means. If one employs an evil means to achieve a good end, that good end is itself corrupted and besmeared by the evil done to achieve it. Both sides want good AND bad things: both sides are using less-than-moral (even evil) means to achieve what they want: therefore both sides stand under the same moral condemnation.

I could draw an analogy to a self-defence situation. If you see someone approaching your wife and family, carrying a bomb or a weapon with which you know he's going to attack them, you are legally and morally perfectly justified in drawing down on him, and in killing him if that is the only way to stop the attack. No-one will dispute this, and even if some left-wing politically-correct DA decides to charge you with an offence, the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor that you will be acquitted. However, once the attack is over, even if your family has suffered injury in it, you are never entitled to go after the attacker's family and hurt them as revenge for the injury your family has suffered, or as a deterrent to make others think twice about attacking your family in future. The law is very clear on this - as are most meaningful moral standards.

If this seems too "black-and-white", in your opinion, then that's fine, and you have the right to that opinion. I'm simply saying that there are universal moral standards and norms, and anyone who claims to be acting in the right, or for good, must observe those norms, or see his claims fail the acid test.

[matis]

Sorry Preacherman,

But what you wrote in the post immediately above doesn't cut it at all with me. I think it's just more "moral posturing" and frankly I've lost some respect for your opinions.

You are, once again, indulging yourself in "moral judgements" while Israel sizzles in the fire of the hatred of her barbaric enemies. Look to the Arabs for barbarism, not to the Israeli's struggle to survive it.



It is said that the first casualty of war is truth. I think that this is accurate, but neverthless no reason not to fight a just war, or especially to fight for your nation's survival.


Perhaps the second casualty is "moral purity".


You've already written your view of justice: that Israel give up Jewish land, won in a war she begged to avoid, to reward the Arabs for their targeting of innocents.

If you insist on your moral equivalence, then for me, your moral posturing is just that.


Matis

[Preacherman]

Matis, I'm sorry you see it that way. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that.

For me, a moral law is precisely that - a moral imperative, binding on all parties, irrespective of historical rights or wrongs of the situation. If something is defined as morally good or right or just, it's incumbent on all sides to uphold and defend that good: and equally, if something is defined as morally evil or bad or unjust, all sides should avoid that evil. I don't condone criminal or terrorist violence at all, and I thought I'd made that clear in my earlier posts: but neither do I condone retaliatory action that slips into the same evil of attacking innocent parties, even under the pseudonym of "collateral damage".

If attacking civilians is wrong for terrorists, it's wrong also for those seeking to destroy the terrorists. I don't see this as being morally or ethically confusing in any way.

[Cosmoline]

That one of the reasons Israel uses bombs rather than police forces is BECAUSE of the "Peace" accords. When Israel controlled the streets, Israel did not have to rely on high explosives dropped from altitude. Now, these territories are a festering no-man's-land where not even well-armed troops are safe.

It's yet another example of how the peaceniks ended up causing more bloodshed.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm to the point where I want the Isralies to wipe out every last Palestinian on the face of the earth.



Then again, I'm also to the point where I'd like to see the Palestinians wipe out every last Isralie on the face of the earth.


All gone, no more problems...

[sw442642]

There is no moral equivalency between Arab and Israeli actions. That there is a fiction of those blinded by who either hate Israel for various reasons best left unsaid or of total wussy lack of backbone.

The Arab world could have welcomed the Israel refugees but instead chose a racist, bigoted path. They could still have a state if the terror stopped.

Today on NPR there was a story of how Palestinian and Jordanian fathers are proud they kill their daughters over the perception of some sexual innuendo. This is a failed culture that is unable to offer a peaceful resolution to the situation. Preacherman, you have to be befuddled not to realize this and post such apologist drivel.

'Collateral damage' is a public relations ploy of monsters to avoid retribution when they kill innocents. If you don't realize this, then you are such plain ol' stupid.

Which one of you who sees merit in the Palestinian actions would support a similar campaign by Mexico in the USA?

Would you support massive reparations to Mexico and giving back of the Southwest to Mexico. Rather than whining about the Palestinians - go join the Mexican Liberation Front and go blow yourself up in Dallas?

Does that make any sense ? - that is the moral equivalency of your position.

And Mike Irwin - too bad you weren't in the WTC on 9/11, if that is your view on the situation.

[NeverAgain26]

There goes the thread. And it was coming along in a civil manner.

NA26

[grampster]

Preacherman: The flaw in your conclusions regarding this conversation is that you seem to be saying that if an innocent dies in a given conflict the entire conflict at that point becomes immoral. That argument is in vain and not valid because it is not possible for any national conflict to avoid the innocent.

I would submit that every conflict in the history of Man then is immoral, including what we are doing now with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some here would jump for joy to be able to preach that message. The trouble with that view is that good men then stand by and do nothing in the face of the reality of evil. That cannot be, preacherman. You are a cleric, a Christian cleric I presume. Jesus said (I paraphrase) AS FAR AS IS POSSIBLE live at peace with your neighbor. The implication is that it may not always be possible to do so.

I have read with interest all that has been said in this thread, especially those comments that reject religion as having validity in this conflict or having a part in the statesmanship to rectify it. But, that is what it is all about at the end of the day, religion. Abraham's bastard son, Ishmael, who's descendants are the Arabs and the resulting familial hatred for Abraham's other son by his wife; Isaac, who's descendents are the Jews. But even that hatred is not understandable as Ishmael was given a promise of great nationhood as well as Isaac. Hagar did not appear to instill hatred into her son. God did not curse Ishmael and put emnity between him and his brother. But yet it is a familial conflict, one of blood between the descendents of half brothers who have BOTH inhabited the same lands. No matter your belief, this conflict is about that, religious, familial disputation. The God of Israel is also the God of Ishmael. God made them both into great nations as was foretold. They have much more in common than not. Yet in the name of God and ownership of land they both possess they kill each other. Unfortunately they are so busy killing one another that they have forgotten that they are brothers and two great nations. (A great New Testament analogy is the parable of the wayward son, another, the Old Testament story about the sons of Issac; Jacob and Esau) No matter your belief system, there is much history in the books of the Muslim Arab, Jew and Christian. There is also much wisdom. With respect to whether it is true or not, fiction, urban legend etc., that is a matter for each individual conscience, understanding that if there is a God and he wanted to leave a valid record in writing, it cetainly would not be in error. Again, your own decision to be made regarding that judgment. But history is history and wisdom is wisdom, regardless of your belief system or lack of one.

Nowhere in Old Testament history did God state that Arabs and Jews should be at one another's throats. Both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed in different ways, to go their own ways perhaps, but not necessarily to hate each other. Certainly peace between them is possible. Perhaps America is the gold standard example of how the various and sundry of the world can become at one with each other, for the most part. Probably why we stick our noses in everbody's business, because we are everybody!

Having said that, I believe the burden of peace between the Arab and the Jew falls on the Arab. Israel has been willing to live side by side with the Arab and has done so. But, so have many Arabs with the Jew. Both need to remember that. Still, Israel has been more re-active rather than pro active in the internecine violence. Violence is like a tornado, preacherman, it can be tracked but not controlled. The terrorists need to be stamped out, for sure, once and for all, but by the Arab. The terrorist will not be reasoned with, and hates even their own kind, so by their own kind they should be destroyed.

[chaim]

I try not to get too involved in Israel/Palestinian threads here since I come here for more direct gun and RKBA topics. I've pretty much stated my position but there is one more thing I feel like I need to comment on:

Matis said:
Sorry Preacherman,

But what you wrote in the post immediately above doesn't cut it at all with me. I think it's just more "moral posturing" and frankly I've lost some respect for your opinions.
(emphasis, of course is mine)

I obviously don't agree with Preacherman on this but I hope the last part of that quote is simply emotion getting away from you as this is an emotional topic. I think there is a place for the "wild eyed" idealist. Sometimes they may seem a bit naive to the rest of us (and they probably are) and we may sometimes (often) think they are simply wrong. In cases like this we may even outright dislike their opinions from their seeming unrealistic view of the world. However, the world would certainly be a worse place without some people who think that way. Additionally, I think Preacherman has proven himself in his other posts to be an intelligent and moral member of THR. While I do think he is very wrong on this issue, he is a very valued and important member of THR and I will always value his posts.

[Mike Irwin]

"And Mike Irwin - too bad you weren't in the WTC on 9/11, if that is your view on the situation."


And that's relevant to the question at hand.... How?

In your supposed moral indignation, you've missed the entire point of my rather acerbic message...

That the eradication of the two warring parties is likely the only thing that will result in true peace between them.

Neither side has proven itself capable of forging a lasting peace, and it's becoming more and more evident that neither side WANTS to forge a lasting peace.

[Preacherman]

Grampster said:
Preacherman: The flaw in your conclusions regarding this conversation is that you seem to be saying that if an innocent dies in a given conflict the entire conflict at that point becomes immoral. That argument is in vain and not valid because it is not possible for any national conflict to avoid the innocent.
Good point, Grampster, but I think you misunderstand me. I never said that "the entire conflict" becomes immoral if one or more individuals or groups take immoral action. Obviously, to fight for the survival of yourself as an individual, or your family, or your nation, is NOT immoral, and is indeed laudable. However, if certain individuals do immoral things in the course of that conflict, those individuals need to be held accountable for their actions. The US military operates in this way, as do the armies of most civilized nations.

I fully support Israel's right to exist, and also fully support the Palestinians' right to a national homeland. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with those aims. However, the method in which they are achieved must also be a justifiable, morally upright way. Anything else constitutes the use of an evil means to achieve a good end, and that is flat-out WRONG.

Mike commented:
Neither side has proven itself capable of forging a lasting peace, and it's becoming more and more evident that neither side WANTS to forge a lasting peace.
Mike, that's a pretty accurate comment, if applied to the LEADERSHIP of both sides. I think there are many on both sides who would like nothing better than peaceful co-existence. (I've been there, and have seen this for myself.) They feel trapped by the men of violence, and feel incapable of influencing the spiral of violence. Unfortunately, their leaders have chosen the way of conflict and violence, and all too many zealots on both sides blindly support this path. Certainly, neither set of leaders has proven itself capable of forging a lasting peace. However, I believe that many (probably a majority) WANT a lasting peace. So, if we can't change the leaders, we must find a way to impose such a peace - if necessary, with a wall between both sides, and the use of whatever force is necessary to stop them crossing in either direction...

Finally, Chaim, thanks! :D

[NeverAgain26]

Mike and Preacherman:

I believe the Israelis (leaders and all) want peace. I can point to peace rallies in Israel (lacking on the Palestinian side) and to what the Israeli leaders (all of them) put on the table to prove my point.

Arafat rejected it all. Hamas is rejecting it. A day or so after the last peace talks, Israel began to dismantle settlements. Hamas' answer was to attack and kill 4 Israeli soldiers. Israel has to go after the terrorists and wipe them out.

You might not like what Israel is forced to do to get the people responsible for blocking peace, but neither does Israel enjoy hurting innocents and they take great pains to avoid hurting innocents. They should be commended for this.

I do not see another way for them to target these terrorists as long as the terrorists hide themselves among innocents. I have seen nothing in the proposals proffered so far here that offers a practical alternative. No rapid strike force can get in and out of there with less damage.

Israel has to act. If innocents get hurt and die along the way, know that a lot more innocents could be getting hurt if Israel went in with a heavy hand and did the job without any concern for collateral damage.

If innocents do get hurt and die, should we not lay the blame at the feet of the Hamas and others like them who expose them to this by seeding themselves in urban populations?

NA26

[Mike Irwin]

"Mike, that's a pretty accurate comment, if applied to the LEADERSHIP of both sides. I think there are many on both sides who would like nothing better than peaceful co-existence."

Both agree AND disagree, Preacher.

The leadership is nothing more than a microcosm of the larger population, meaning that the general population, just like the governemnt, has those who want lasting peace, and those whose vision of peace means that the other side is eradicated.

We can say that the leadership is to blame, but who selects the leaders and allows them to remain in power?

There are hard-core Jewish groups within Israel who themselves have adopted positions that virtually guarantee violent clashes with Palestinians -- unrestricted Jewish settlemnt, rebuilding the synagog on the Temple Mount, most plans for which would require destruction of the Dome of the Rock and/or the Al Aqksa mosque.

Think the Palestinians, or most Muslim faithful, for that matter, would sit back and accept that without putting up a fuss?

[DaveB]

For those who believe that Israel is justified in almost anything...

Here's a question (following Mike's lead):

If you were a Palestinian living in Palestine,

what would you do (WWYD) ?

db

[Mike Irwin]

"I believe the Israelis (leaders and all) want peace."

I think that's an accurate statement, Never.

I think the same thing can be said of the Palestinians, as well.

The problem is, there's a WORLD of difference when it comes time to work out a plan to GET to that peace.

For some peace means a cooperative effort toward solving differences, establishing dialogs and negotiating agreements with which all can live -- in other words, an equitable peace in which no individual or group gets everything, but no one loses everything.

For others, peace is a great thing as LONG as that individual gets EVERYTHING that he or she wants (by definition at the expense of the other party(ies)), and only he or she has any input into the peace, in other words a unilateral peace.

You don't agree with that individual's assessment, hey, you're not working toward a peaceful solution!

And finally, yes, there are those on both sides who believe that the only way peace can be achieved is through the absolute destruction of the other side. Those are the violent radicals, and fortunately they're the minority. But they're the ones we hear the most about because they tend to do the most physical and human damage.

All of these groups are well represented on both sides of the argument.

[johnpmahler]

If you look back over the previous 55 years or so, you will find that just about every Israeli government was willing to live side by side with the Arab peoples and gov't.

Prior to 1967 and the 6 day war, all that was required was for the various Arab countries to simply accept Israels existence and obey the UN Partition of the Mandate, which would have left Jerusalem an open city.

After 1967 they had to keep looking....only this time they had the option of trading land. Please remember that Jordan's King only invaded Israel in '67 because the alternative was to be either deposed or assinated. Every Arab leader that ever tried to establish a real peace with Israel ended up killed by their own people. Arafat knows this, and isn't willing to run the risk.

Even to this date, the PA and it's prime minister have never publicly (or otherwise) stated that they would accept the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Most of the 'hardline' leadership in Israel looks at the situation as one of 'why bother?' They don't believe that the PA or Syria will ever accept a state of peace (not without some reason). If you take that as a given, why would you negotiate? Why give them another chance to lie to your face and then kill more of your people?

On a different note, since Hamas, Al Asqua, Islamic Jihad and the like are in a state of declared war with Israel, then it's not assination. It's killing the enemy where you find them. No different than a marine sniper taking a head shot at an enemy commander or trying to drop a 2,000 lb bomb on Saddams bunker.

John

[matis]

Chaim,

About Preacherman and his moralizing, I'll repeat what I said a few posts previously: "you just have much more patience than I do."


johnpmahler said:
__________________________________________________
Most of the 'hardline' leadership in Israel looks at the situation as one of 'why bother?' They don't believe that the PA or Syria will ever accept a state of peace (not without some reason). If you take that as a given, why would you negotiate? Why give them another chance to lie to your face and then kill more of your people?
__________________________________________________

THAT is why I take the position I do. I am simply facing an ugly and unchangeable reality.

The game of negotiating with the Arabs cannot go on for ever. Time is on the Arabs side, given their huge population advantage, excacerbated by their demographics and then there is the hostile opinion of a world that holds Israel to a standard that they themselves would never adhere to. They have already shown, for millennia, how "morally" they treat the Jews.

What should Israel wait for? Until the Arabs get nuclear weapons?

The Israelis should do what they have to, while they can.



Matis

[Sir Galahad]

If I were a Palestinian living in Palestine....hmmmm.....or if I was a German living in Germany in 1938 and the SS offered such a great benefits package and paid vacation. What's the difference? They all want(ed) to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth. Sorry, Dave, but putting the "human face" on genocide doesn't make it prettier. I heard Himmler used to weep at the operas. Doesn't make him the kind of guy you'd invite over for Pop-Tarts and coffee.

[DaveB]

Sir Galahad, you missed the point. Palestine is an occupied land (occupied by the Israelis).

If not, why not?

If so,

1, What are the responsibilities of the citizens of an occupied land (to themselves, their fellow citizens, their children, etc)?

2, What are their rights? For example, POWs are required/expected to try to escape and/or fight their captors. What about the right to resist?

3, Again, what would you do? Move away? Suicide? Convert? Fight? - If so, how?

I'm not making a judgement here (except for the 'occupied' part), but I want to know what all y'all would do if you weren't here (in the USA) watching it all on TV.

db

[2dogs]

I want to know what all y'all would do

Why, exactly what the brave Palestinian "freedom fighters " do, of course.:rolleyes:

"GIRL SHOT DEAD
There was no claim of responsibility for Tuesday night’s shooting of an Israeli girl in a car near Kibbutz Eyal in central Israel which the army said was carried out by Palestinians firing from a house in the West Bank border town of Qalqilya.
Medics said the dead girl was seven and two people wounded in the attack were her five-year-old sister and her father."

[NeverAgain26]

How about we switch things around and ask what are the responsibilities of ordinary citizens and their government to protect themselves from people with gripes who were willing to resort to extremes to attain their goals? What would we do here in America if someone came into our neighborhoods and cities and blew themselves up and shot and killed seven year old kids, kids waiting in line for ice cream and pizza, kids at school, randomly targeted buses.

I think any one of us would go after them and kill them like the cockroaches they are, wherever they were found, would we not?

I used to think the average Palestinian was powerless against these a**holes who commit atrocities against the Israelis day in and day out and could not do anything about them so I felt sorry for the Palestinians who genuinely wanted peace because they could not stop these spoilers from within their own ranks. After all, all the bad guy Palestinians were armed and the ordinary Joe Palestinian was not.

But it just hit me that the Palestinians are apparently not sheep and if there exist Palestinians with moxie enough to go against the Israelis and blow themselves up, there should also be enough Palestinians with the moxie to police their own ranks and get rid of the bad apples who were spoiling things for them so some kind of peace could be reached and people could get on with life and start to build a homeland the Israelis had agreed to and put on the table countless times ...

... unless, of course they did not want to?

If past occupiers of America started blowing themselves up in our cities to reclaim their occupied lands, we would squash them like bugs, I think.

NA26

[Mike Irwin]

Or is, in fact, "Palestine" a Jewish land taken from the Jews, later occupied by other groups, and then given back to the Jews?

Remember, Islam's only been around since approximately AD 650.

[Sir Galahad]

"Palestine" is what the Romans named the place. Funny how people so angry with the "West" adopt a Western name for themselves.:rolleyes: DaveB, you ask what I'd do. I certainly would not send my child out with a bomb strapped on to die and kill women and children for despotical scumbags like Arafat.:rolleyes: IF the Pals really wanted peace, they'd have had it but that's not what Arafat wanted. Like other tyrants, he wants to drag everyone else into the grave with him. Not everyone is "watching it on TV", Dave. What, are you a UN observor over there or something? :rolleyes: You make the assumption that no one but you knows the truth. Question for you, Dave: What would YOU do if you were an Israeli? Here you survived the nazi death camps where they killed your children and tried to exterminate the Jewish race. Now here are people again, killing your children and calling for your extermination. What are YOU going to do when the mothers bury their children and their blood cries out for justice? Are you going to offer words? Or are you going to defend your people? Yeah, you think being a Pal is tough? Try being a Jew for the past 1,000 years. I have tremendous respect and admiration for Israel and for the Jewish people as a whole. Lots of other folks would have already given up and started whining. Look at some groups right here in this country. Excuses, excuses, excuses, and whining. I don't see Israel whining. They do. They have always been can-do. A survivor of the Shoah once told me, "A Jew had to be twice as good as the best man just to survive in Eastern Europe." So, Dave, perhaps the soul-searching needs to be done by yourself.

[DaveB]

All I'm after here is some admission that there are two (at least) sides to every conflict.

Would I defend my nation and my family against attack? You bet.

But I promise you that rage and murder do not spring fully-formed from nothing, and as long as the Israelis (and we) pretend that we're the innocent victims of some irrational, abstract evil, the sooner we can all stop looking over our shoulders everytime we go out of the house.

Of course, we can always 'Kill them All' (except that there's a lot of them).

db

[OF]

And Mike Irwin - too bad you weren't in the WTC on 9/11, if that is your view on the situationI'm sorry, but did I just see sw442642 openly wish Mike dead? Am I the only one who finds that utterly repugnant and totally unacceptable behavior?

:fire:

- Gabe

[DaveB]

I'm sorry, but did I just see sw442642 openly wish Mike dead?

You're surprised? Take a look at the Gregory Peck thread.

db

[Sir Galahad]

Dave, so rage and murder always have rational and fully justifiable reasons? So, then, Dave, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction from the rage of the defeated Southerners was fully justified? And, the murder of black freedmen was fully understandable? And the continuation of the Ku Klux Klan well up until today, including murders, arson, and beatings of blacks and their property was and is wholly understandable given the rage of Southerners over Reconstruction? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[Oleg Volk]

Time to separate this discussion into "what constitutes acceptable reasons for violence" and "history of the Middle Eastern troubles"...and to inject a little mutual courtesy and civility into this friendly debate. Thank you.