snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » War, What Is It Good For? » Israeli Army pushes into Gaza (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 21 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  19  20  21   
Author Topic: Israeli Army pushes into Gaza
Ophiuchus
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ophiuchus   E-mail Ophiuchus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MaxGunnar:
quote:
It's legitamacy is seriously, seriously questionable
Help me out you historians, I do believe Isreal was officialy recognized in '48 by the UN.
Okay, so by your definition of 'legitamacy', anyone who can hijack any country or piece of land and get a larger country to strong-arm the U.N. into recognizing them is legit...

So in my example of the Native Americans hijacking a state in the United States, because the U.N. has recognized them, it would be perfectly legit.

Or lets say that the Northern Irish take over all of Britian, if they get the U.N. to recognize them, perfectly legit... doesn't matter what the English think.

Somehow I would think most definitions of legitamacy would account for the people who live in the area, not just a majority of people everywhere else.

Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DesertRat:
Luis, Judeaism is NOT just a religion; it's an ethnic group with a recognized history of persecution.

Yes? To me, they aren't ethnically different from other Brazilians - and if they are, it is because they are German, Polish, or Moroccan. Not because they are Jewish.

quote:
We cannot let the extremists of both sides define the morality of this debate; there are still plenty of good people caught in the middle.
If only the extremists in Israel's side were judicially treated in the same way the extremists in the Palestinian side are, they would leave me without half of my arguments.

quote:
What distubs me, though, is this is a lose-lose for Israel.
What disturbs me is that it is a lose-lose situation for the Palestinians.

Either they "win" (win an "independent" State that cannot stand on its own feet) or they lose (lose the right to live in a country they can call "theirs").

quote:
No matter what they do, their actions are likely to inflame a flurry of violence--either due to a perception of them being weak (if they do nothing), or in retribution (spawned by their current course of action).
It is what happens to those who invade, occupy, destroy, persecute, and yet wish to be recognised as rightful victims of the people who they have dispossessed.

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Waffles: the "edit" button is different from the "quote" button.
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MaxGunnar
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for MaxGunnar   E-mail MaxGunnar   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Palistine was never a country, there is no Palistinian language their culture is Arab, Egyptian and other Semites. Isreal ceased to be a nation after it's failed rebelion against the Romans in the first century and renamed "Land of the Philistines" to irk the Jews that were not taken to Rome as slaves. That area has always been some administrative unit of some major power. The latest were the Ottoman Turks who lost it after WWI and adminisitered by the British until '48. Jewish refugees were fleeing to that area due to German "Final Solutions" and Soviet "Pogroms"
Posts: 283 | From: Richmond, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MaxGunnar:
Palistine was never a country,

Max, all the present day countries have a foundation date - previous to which, they "were never a country".

quote:
there is no Palistinian language
Just like there is no American or Brazilian languages, we speak respectively English and Portuguese. Are we nostalgic of our pre-Independence days?

quote:
their culture is Arab, Egyptian and other Semites.
So? They are fair game because they don't speak an Indo-European language?

quote:
Isreal ceased to be a nation after it's failed rebelion against the Romans in the first century and renamed "Land of the Philistines" to irk the Jews that were not taken to Rome as slaves.
In fact, Israel ceased to be an independent kingdom before that. The Romans reduced them to a protetorate; when they rebelled, they were smashed, massacred and dispersed.

quote:
The latest were the Ottoman Turks who lost it after WWI and adminisitered by the British until '48. That area has always been some administrative unit of some major power.
The latest were the British, you mean.

quote:
Jewish refugees were fleeing to that area due to German "Final Solutions" and Soviet "Pogroms"
On the contrary, Max, the Bolshevik revolution ceased the long history of persecution against Jews in the Czarist Empire. And the demographic movement from Nazi Germany to Palestine was also very feeble - the Nazis weren't letting them out from the country so easily.

Anyway, even if true, Palestine was not uninhabited; what right did they have to simply come in and expell the previous inhabitants, erase their villages from the map, and deny their right to go back home?

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ophiuchus:
quote:
Originally posted by MaxGunnar:
quote:
It's legitamacy is seriously, seriously questionable
Help me out you historians, I do believe Isreal was officialy recognized in '48 by the UN.
Okay, so by your definition of 'legitamacy', anyone who can hijack any country or piece of land and get a larger country to strong-arm the U.N. into recognizing them is legit...

Yeah. Pretty much that's how it works.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Feijoada:
Israel denies them citizenship and independence.

How, exactly, does Israel deny the Palestinians the right to declare themselves a sovereign nation? That nation, consisting of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, would have a national government, and would quickly be recognized by the U.N., by the U.S., by Europe, and by every country in the world. Even Israel would have to recognize them.

Israel would *prefer* this to be the case. It would entail two nations, living side by side, with well-defined borders, in peace. I don't see why you think Israel would (or could!) keep this from happening.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
How, exactly, does Israel deny the Palestinians the right to declare themselves a sovereign nation?

By only accepting its "independence" under the condition of maintaining checkpoint on its roads, Israeli controlled highways crossing its lands, walls separating its cities, and denying them viable seaports and airports.

quote:
That nation, consisting of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, would have a national government, and would quickly be recognized by the U.N., by the U.S., by Europe, and by every country in the world. Even Israel would have to recognize them.
Well, in this case, why doesn't it happen?

quote:
Israel would *prefer* this to be the case.
Do you speak for them?

quote:
I don't see why you think Israel would (or could!) keep this from happening.
Because it has been doing this for decades, and I have some difficulty in denying facts.

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Feijoada:
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
How, exactly, does Israel deny the Palestinians the right to declare themselves a sovereign nation?

By only accepting its "independence" under the condition of maintaining checkpoint on its roads, Israeli controlled highways crossing its lands, walls separating its cities, and denying them viable seaports and airports.


Nonsense: once the two nations agree on borders, Israel will have no need for checkpoints inside Palestine. As for airports and seaports, the Palestinians can build their own, just as the Israelis have.

quote:
quote:
That nation, consisting of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, would have a national government, and would quickly be recognized by the U.N., by the U.S., by Europe, and by every country in the world. Even Israel would have to recognize them.
Well, in this case, why doesn't it happen?



Primarily because the extremist Palestinians, the ones in charge (Fatah and Hamas) don't *want* an independent nation of their own. They want to destroy Israel.

If they wanted a nation of their own, they would have had it thirty years ago.

quote:
quote:
Israel would *prefer* this to be the case.
Do you speak for them?



Do you speak for the Palestinians?

quote:
quote:
I don't see why you think Israel would (or could!) keep this from happening.
Because it has been doing this for decades, and I have some difficulty in denying facts.
Israel has been trying to make peace with its neighbors for nearly seventy years now. Its neighbors have been trying to destroy it for just as long.

Israel has no objection whatever to an independent Palestinian state, just as it has no problems with the existence of independent Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. To Israel, Palestine would just be another neighboring Arab country. They have no reason whatever to object to it.

If the Palestinians want a country, they can have it in twenty quick shakes of a diplomat's pen. Israel would sign a peace treaty with them in a heartbeat.

It is the Palestinians, and they alone, who are blocking peace in the region, by insisting on such things as the "right of return," total control of Jerusalem, or (in many cases) Israel's destruction.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MaxGunnar:
Palistine was never a country, there is no Palistinian language their culture is Arab, Egyptian and other Semites. Isreal ceased to be a nation after it's failed rebelion against the Romans in the first century and renamed "Land of the Philistines" to irk the Jews that were not taken to Rome as slaves. That area has always been some administrative unit of some major power. The latest were the Ottoman Turks who lost it after WWI and adminisitered by the British until '48. Jewish refugees were fleeing to that area due to German "Final Solutions" and Soviet "Pogroms"

You need to read that link I posted earlier.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
wolfe2dale
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for wolfe2dale   E-mail wolfe2dale   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by guruwan2b:
I'm wondering if this is another one of wolfie's experiments......

No, this one is from the heart, I have accepted that my 'experiment' in the Patriotism thread was a miscalculation, & will not be attempting it again.

My issue here is that Israel have become a powerful, military agressor who reacts to the slightest provocation with missile strikes & to something like a kidnapping with a full invasion.

I seem to recall that they have one of the most accomplished Special Forces units in the world, (Mossad). Are we saying that they could not have located this soldier & rescued him without sending in the jets & tanks? I find that very hard to believe.

As to Israel not owning Gaza, this is true, but it is something they have always wanted. It seems very suspect to me that they have so quickly used this as an excuse to re-occupy the area.

Posts: 80 | From: Hemel Hempstead, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
You need to read that link I posted earlier.

In 1947, the core Arab leadership of Palestine rejected the UN partition plan, while the core Jewish leadership there accepted it. Then, on the day partition was to take place, five Arab armies invaded the three separate Jewish enclaves. Compare these facts to what is mentioned in your linked timeline.

Also, why does your link only mention Jewish migration to Palestine, not Arab? See Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931
.

Sadly, whomever wrote your link poses as a peacemaker while delegitimatizing one and only one party to the conflict.

Yes, I noticed the web site it is from (un.org).

I am not criticizing the UN for publicizing the Palestinian Arab narrative. I am criticizing them for publicizing a version of that narrative only.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, I didn't write the thing. Take it up with the authors.

[ETA: But the Arab migration is interesting. In my link, there is a map that shows the population of metropolitan areas by ethnicity in 1945. Migration in that limited time period cannot account for the fact that Arabs were a plurality of the population of Palestine in 1945.]

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Feijoada:
Apartheid, no less.

Yes, there are some similarities between Israel and the old South Africa -- nuclear weapons program. However, I don't recall that the Israelis are trying to restrict 80% of the population to a few small bantustans. And I do recall Palestinian violence, dating back at least a century but still prevalent today, towards anyone who sells land to Jews. There the sides fall, in some measure, the opposite of what you suggest in alluding to the white South Africa effort to keep the land for themselves.

You might also consider some differences between the military strategy of the African National Congress and that of Palestinian militaries. The Africans hardly ever attacked anything except military, police, and generally unoccupied infrastructure such as power plants; the biggest clearly terrorist attack white South Africans could point to may be the killing of three whites on the Durban beach, 14 June 1986. While there might have been a rogue element here and there that departed from the fundamental strategy, it is unthinkable that the ANC and related militaries would have rained down randomly aimed rocket fire day after day, for weeks on end, on a mostly white town, as the Palestinian side has done on the mostly Jewish town of Sderot until stopped by this new (and temporary) invasion.

I realize that veterans of the South African struggle often identify with that of the Palestinians; if they understood Palestine's history as well as their own, they might not.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MaxGunnar
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for MaxGunnar   E-mail MaxGunnar   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't know what history books your reading there Fiejoada, but all mine say the Jews of Nazi Germany were free to leave, with near nothing of course, but many countries refused them entry, including the U.S. to our shame, unless they were deemed valuable. The Soviets were persecuting religious Jews to the end.
Posts: 283 | From: Richmond, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Feijoada said
quote:
On the contrary, Max, the Bolshevik revolution ceased the long history of persecution against Jews in the Czarist Empire. And the demographic movement from Nazi Germany to Palestine was also very feeble - the Nazis weren't letting them out from the country so easily.
Jews were persecuted by the Tsars; that is indisputable. However, to claim that the Bolshevik revolution ended, or even reduced persecution, is nonsense. Under the tsars the Jews were allowed to practice their religion, and maintain their cultural identity; they were taxed more than other groups and were periodically subjected to violence. Under the Soviets repeated attempts were made to destroy that cultural identity, forced assimilation was the policy of the state.

The state of Israel was created by palestinian Jews fighting arabs, by British officials who sympathized with those Jews, by the wealthy Jews of Britain and America donating enormous amounts of money and influence. It was created on occupied land, and as I have already stated I agree that that was wrong.

At the time a serious proposal was put forth to establish the new Israel in your corner of the Globe; Paraguay actually offered the land, but it was felt more appropriate to give the Jews their ancestral homeland, largely because the Jews were moving there without consulting the UN or Britain.

The world, through the UN, recognized Israel for two reasons:

1. Israel existed in 48 as a matter of fact, it had defined borders and an autonomous government.

2. A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.

The native Palestinians got screwed; no question about it. The problem is that we are now almost two generations removed from these events, Israel's population has burgeoned, and the strongest elements of the Palestinian leadership have opted for a 'death to Israel' platform of negotiations, probably because such an exremist policy keeps Hamas and others of that ilk in power. There are many parallels with the way that the extremists in the PIRA leadership stalled negotiations with Britain for years, even to the point of alienating support in Eire.

I get that you are pro-palestinian, but do you find the calls for the destruction of Israel, the signs praising the holocaust, and the suicide bombings, to be reasonable responses to the situation?

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dogwater
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dogwater   E-mail Dogwater   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

...snip...

The world, through the UN, recognized Israel for two reasons:

1. Israel existed in 48 as a matter of fact, it had defined borders and an autonomous government.

2. A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.

The native Palestinians got screwed; no question about it. The problem is that we are now almost two generations removed from these events, Israel's population has burgeoned, and the strongest elements of the Palestinian leadership have opted for a 'death to Israel' platform of negotiations, probably because such an exremist policy keeps Hamas and others of that ilk in power. (MY EMPHASIS) There are many parallels with the way that the extremists in the PIRA leadership stalled negotiations with Britain for years, even to the point of alienating support in Eire.

...snip...

Forgive my not quoting fully, but this part goes to my point: Certainly we may look upon things that occured in the past and judge them as right and wrong. Not only can we, but we MUST if we are to evolve in morals and ethics.

However, that said, we must also look upon the events of history in the context of that same period in time -- What was going on in the world? What was the standard of ethics? What events led up to said historical actions? --I am sure that many Americans feel the shame of the genocide that began this country as whole nations of Native Americans were slaughterd for our ancestors' gain -- One can continue on and on with these same types of examples. Basically it was the rule of Might Makes Right; often justified by calling it "God's Will".

Although past wounds may, at times, be legitamately used to justify present actions, the circumstances of those past tresspasses must be considered in the light of history.

Certainly there is culpability on both sides here. However,I cannot find justification for rejecting peace based upon the lack of destruction of another. The Palastinian leaders can claim this as there shameful track record.

--------------------
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

Posts: 1679 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DAnnino
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DAnnino     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Major D. Saster:
French ??? WTF ?

DAnnino, do these names sound familiar?:

Mystère 4
Ouragan
Super-Mystère B2
Vautour
Mirage III

... Actually, where would Israel be without those... French aircraft ?

And BTW, the young soldier who was kidnapped has double french/israeli citizenship (his father is french)... so your joke is at least tasteless.

Indeed, you are coorrect sir. France supported Israel long before the US did.

This was a lame attempt at a joke based on what the quoted poster had opined on another thread.

Sorry.

--------------------
NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORSE ENEMY
--
"I grok when apes learn to laugh, they'll be people."

Posts: 727 | From: Southeastern Arizona | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DAnnino
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DAnnino     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
quote:
Originally posted by DAnnino:
quote:
Originally posted by wolfe2dale:
I am getting so sick of Israel.... I hope the rest of the Middle-East joins Palestine and this time they win.

Perilously close to anti-Semitism, I think. Add that anti-American bent I saw in the patriotism thread, and we might think you're French! [Eek!]

Edit: Or French Canadian.! [Eek!] [Eek!]

French Canadians being well known anti-semetic anti- americans?
Not anti-Semitic (refer to above post). Somewhat anti-American (based on over five years serving in Customs on the Quebec border).

--------------------
NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORSE ENEMY
--
"I grok when apes learn to laugh, they'll be people."

Posts: 727 | From: Southeastern Arizona | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DAnnino
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DAnnino     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
quote:
Originally posted by Feijoada:
quote:
Originally posted by Cauvignac:
I'm curious as to why Israel would go to the trouble of withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and then look for an excuse to take it back.

Simple.

They took their citizens out of it, so that they can attack it without risking their lives.

Luís Henrique

That people truly believe this of the Israeli's is the reason I tend to avoid these threads.
Agreed. I know I shouldn't have gotten involved.

--------------------
NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORSE ENEMY
--
"I grok when apes learn to laugh, they'll be people."

Posts: 727 | From: Southeastern Arizona | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Zachary Fizz
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Zachary Fizz     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.


I think that is slightly mistaken, AF. The Holocaust commenced in late 1941; at that point the nations which were fighting, or had fought until defeat by, Nazi Germany included Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the other nations of the British Empire, France and her empire, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. And Luxembourg.

I do not think that any of the victorious nations had anything to feel guilty about.

ETA: I ought to say, this is just a nitpick. I think your analysis was pretty much on the nail apart from that.

Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
The problem is that we are now almost two generations removed from these events, Israel's population has burgeoned, and the strongest elements of the Palestinian leadership have opted for a 'death to Israel' platform of negotiations, probably because such an exremist policy keeps Hamas and others of that ilk in power. There are many parallels with the way that the extremists in the PIRA leadership stalled negotiations with Britain for years, even to the point of alienating support in Eire.

Not to derail the thread, as I so often do, into a discussion of Irish armed force liberation movements and their history, but it's not fair to say that the IRA stalled negotiations with Britain. It was very much the other way around, if anything.

Prior to the Humes-Adams and Reynolds-Major talks which eventually resulted in the Good Friday Agreement, the preconditions that Britain demanded before negotiations were tantamount to surrender, and simply could never be agreed to by Republicans.

Prior to the current creaking ceasefire in place, the previous two IRA ceasefires collapsed because Britain wouldn't come to the table, not the other way around.

Secondly, the IRA is not an organisation of moderates headed by extremists. The army council and GOC have pretty much always been less extreme than the rank-and-file membership, and are much more committed to dialogue than the ordinary Provo in the street (In my street, he's called Malachy.)

I would imagine that the same is true of Hamas to some extent.

Joe Cahill, former OC of the IRA, once said of the Army Council: "Every one of us has an angrier, younger man behind us, with a gun in his hand," which is a good example of the sort of pressures that the Hamas leadership are under to, on the one hand, attain legitimacy in the eyes of the world, and on the other hand to appease angry young men with guns in their hands who think they're not extreme enough..

Incidentally, this is not to defend the IRA; an organisation I have little sympathy for nowadays, but they've always been willing to talk. In fact, a liking for debate is something of a weakness for our race.

Even more incidentally, like Zachary Fizz, I take no issue with anything else in your post. Just nit-picking for the sake of it.

Hmm. That earlier professed desire not to derail the thread into a discussion of the Provos now seems somewhat insincere. I wonder if I could get away with pretending it was some sort of experiment.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.


I think that is slightly mistaken, AF. The Holocaust commenced in late 1941; at that point the nations which were fighting, or had fought until defeat by, Nazi Germany included Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the other nations of the British Empire, France and her empire, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. And Luxembourg.

I do not think that any of the victorious nations had anything to feel guilty about.

ETA: I ought to say, this is just a nitpick. I think your analysis was pretty much on the nail apart from that.

I'll nitpick your nitpick, just a little: the allied nations failed to act against Hitler early, when they could have, and (as noted above) failed to take in Jewish exiles from Germany, even when Krystallnacht and other atrocities clearly showed the danger. The allies had *a little* to feel guilty about.

History tends to gloss over certain "inconvenient truths." The U.S. supported Bonaparte against Britain...and the WWII allies failed to act against Hitler because they saw him as an enemy of communism, which, in the 1930s, they feared more than they feared fascism.

The "Cold War" and its consequences, for which we are paying the price even today, shows that this myopic reasoning -- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- still deludes national leadership.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So, does anybody think the arrest of political leaders is a good thing?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israel rounded up members of the Hamas-led Palestinian government Thursday, arresting Cabinet ministers and parliament members as a crisis over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier deepened.

Also, a hole has been blown (by the Palestinians) through the Gaza/Egypt wall.


This kind of scares me. The thought of this escalating and spreading is not pretty.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.


I think that is slightly mistaken, AF. The Holocaust commenced in late 1941; at that point the nations which were fighting, or had fought until defeat by, Nazi Germany included Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the other nations of the British Empire, France and her empire, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. And Luxembourg.

I do not think that any of the victorious nations had anything to feel guilty about.

ETA: I ought to say, this is just a nitpick. I think your analysis was pretty much on the nail apart from that.

I'll nitpick your nitpick, just a little: the allied nations failed to act against Hitler early, when they could have, and (as noted above) failed to take in Jewish exiles from Germany, even when Krystallnacht and other atrocities clearly showed the danger. The allies had *a little* to feel guilty about.

History tends to gloss over certain "inconvenient truths." The U.S. supported Bonaparte against Britain...and the WWII allies failed to act against Hitler because they saw him as an enemy of communism, which, in the 1930s, they feared more than they feared fascism.

The "Cold War" and its consequences, for which we are paying the price even today, shows that this myopic reasoning -- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- still deludes national leadership.

Silas

Thanks Silas, you beat me to my defense against the nit pick [Big Grin] I regard Krystallnacht as the beginning of the holocaust. It was the point where the Jews began to be deprived of their property and means of defense. From then on they were pretty much disenfranchised prisoners, they could leave Germany as long as they did it empty handed.

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Zachary Fizz
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Zachary Fizz     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
A decade before the western democracies had stood idly by and allowed the Holocaust to occur, and allowing the Jews a homeland was thought an important gesture of reparation.


I think that is slightly mistaken, AF. The Holocaust commenced in late 1941; at that point the nations which were fighting, or had fought until defeat by, Nazi Germany included Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the other nations of the British Empire, France and her empire, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. And Luxembourg.

I do not think that any of the victorious nations had anything to feel guilty about.

ETA: I ought to say, this is just a nitpick. I think your analysis was pretty much on the nail apart from that.

I'll nitpick your nitpick, just a little: the allied nations failed to act against Hitler early, when they could have, and (as noted above) failed to take in Jewish exiles from Germany, even when Krystallnacht and other atrocities clearly showed the danger. The allies had *a little* to feel guilty about.

History tends to gloss over certain "inconvenient truths." The U.S. supported Bonaparte against Britain...and the WWII allies failed to act against Hitler because they saw him as an enemy of communism, which, in the 1930s, they feared more than they feared fascism.

The "Cold War" and its consequences, for which we are paying the price even today, shows that this myopic reasoning -- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- still deludes national leadership.

Silas

I would be keen to see any evidence whatsoever to the effect that the British cabinet between 1933 and 1939 considered Hitler anything but a menace.

Or that Attlee's government felt any war guilt.

Perhaps it was the fact that the western democracies were effectively disarmed up till 1938 which prevented them from interfering with a sovereign power? Or perhaps it was respect for international law? In those days, democracies did not wage aggressive war.

Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Zachary Fizz
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Zachary Fizz     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
AF posted
quote:
I regard Krystallnacht as the beginning of the holocaust.
Well, it's a free country, as they say. But since everybody else except you and President Ahmedinejad understands the holocaust to be the campaign of genocide against the Jewish people, carried out pursuant to the ordering of the Endlosung from late 1941 up to the liberation of the death camps in 1944/5, you'll forgive me if I didn't realise you had made up your own, meaning so that it fitted in with your point.

Personally, without for a moment wishing to diminish the gravity of the crimes of the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1941, I take the view that to conflate Krystallnacht with the deliberate and systematic attempted murder of the all Jews, communists, disabled and homosexuals, is to tend to trivialise the latter crime. But it seems YMMV.

Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
AF posted
quote:
I regard Krystallnacht as the beginning of the holocaust.
Well, it's a free country, as they say. But since everybody else except you and President Ahmedinejad understands the holocaust to be the campaign of genocide against the Jewish people, carried out pursuant to the ordering of the Endlosung from late 1941 up to the liberation of the death camps in 1944/5, you'll forgive me if I didn't realise you had made up your own, meaning so that it fitted in with your point.

Personally, without for a moment wishing to diminish the gravity of the crimes of the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1941, I take the view that to conflate Krystallnacht with the deliberate and systematic attempted murder of the all Jews, communists, disabled and homosexuals, is to tend to trivialise the latter crime. But it seems YMMV.

Ok, I'll try to be more civil about this than your post was. I am not making up a definition; I am indicating my belief that marking all Jews travel documents and identity papers to indicate that they were Jews was a necessary preliminary step in the process of gathering up and then murdering Jews.

Krystallnacht and the Reichstag fire were the 'unrest' that 'justified' the removal of Jews' civil rights, that is clearly a step in the process of genocide and as such is part of the Holocaust. To say that nothing prior to the actual killing was part of the genocide is to be blind to the path such heinous acts follow.

First you demonize your intended victim; then you disarm them by depriving them of wealth, freedom of mobility, and other basic civil rights; then you compile a registry of them; then you kill them. Given that Mein Kampf clearly indicates Hitler's goal of a 'final solution' it is naive to disconnect the earlier steps from the actual killing.

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archie2K
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 203 posted      Profile for Archie2K   Author's Homepage   E-mail Archie2K   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
I also find blind support of Israel by the US, as demonstrated so aptly by Major D. Saster to be frightening. Israel's military is so "mighty" thanks entirely to the billions of dollars in military aid the US provides them each year. That Israel would use that might against residents/citizens of its own country is disgusting. Israel's culpability in the slaughter increases each day.

The US also provides an enormous amount of aid to Egypt, as agreed after the Camp David accords, largely as a way of bribing Israel and Egypt not go to war again. It must also be noted that the Soviets seemed quite happy to provide arms to Israel's neighbours. I don't see US support for Israel as anything more than political good sense.

Regards the situation in general, most Israel's PMs have been happy to negotiate a settlement to the dispute. Barak was IIRC prepared to offer 93% of the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state as well as significant control over Jerusalem. Barak put his head on the line to offer the most generous package ever to Palestine, Arafat said no, Sharon then deposed Barak in the Knesset and set off the second intifada. What should Israel do in negotiations? Offer up their own destruction?

Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
So, does anybody think the arrest of political leaders is a good thing?

To paraphrase Daniel Pipes in other contexts, it's an attempt to finess the conflict rather than to achieve victory. Convincing the Palestinians that they will not be allowed to have a political leadership until they give up the right of return, thus accepting the legitimacy of non-Muslim rule in Palestine, might be a reasonable strategy, but it becomes weak when everyone knows Olmert and friends are going to let these people go.

I don't heavily criticize Israeli leaders because I know that they are hemmed in by golden handcuffs from the US, and, much more, by the need to maintain Israel's national unity when much of the population is is a good deal to the left of that of the US. Also, it is damn hard to specify what could result in Israeli military victory, and frightening as well since it would trade long run peace in return for greatly increased current suffering. But since the alternative to victory is, in the crusades model cited by many Palestinians, hundreds of more years of conflict, real victory should always be the goal.

So: You can criticize the arrest tactic as ineffectual, but, as for cruelty, it hardly compares with effective warfare.

See Israel Shuns Victory and How Israel Can Win.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I criticize the tactic as undemocratic.

If Israel is in support of a 2-state solution, it cannot be made to think that arresting the government of what will be a sovereign nation is acceptable.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
I criticize the tactic as undemocratic.

If Israel is in support of a 2-state solution, it cannot be made to think that arresting the government of what will be a sovereign nation is acceptable.

What if those arrested actually were involved with the planning and executing of a crime?

Isreal is asserting that those arrested were the leaders of a group "at war" with Isreal (Hamas). Isreal has been taking shelling from that nation and the government of that nation has refused to take action to stop the shelling. Now a raiding party has emerged from that nation, attacked a military installation on Isreali soil and kidnapped 3 of Isreal's people (2 civillians, 1 soldier). How is Isreal's action of responding to an act of war any worse than the Palistinian's act of provoking the response?

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
I criticize the tactic as undemocratic.

If Israel is in support of a 2-state solution, it cannot be made to think that arresting the government of what will be a sovereign nation is acceptable.

What if those arrested actually were involved with the planning and executing of a crime?

Even then, particularly if it is done in violation of the notion of state sovereignty, which this most assuredly was.

Israel has to mind the rules, too.

quote:
Isreal is asserting that those arrested were the leaders of a group "at war" with Isreal (Hamas). Isreal has been taking shelling from that nation and the government of that nation has refused to take action to stop the shelling. Now a raiding party has emerged from that nation, attacked a military installation on Isreali soil and kidnapped 3 of Isreal's people (2 civillians, 1 soldier). How is Isreal's action of responding to an act of war any worse than the Palistinian's act of provoking the response?
Please understand that I am not comparing the better- or worse-ness of anything either side does; I am asking that Israel be held to its obligations as a party to international treaties.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Please understand that I am not comparing the better- or worse-ness of anything either side does; I am asking that Israel be held to its obligations as a party to international treaties.

Which treaties? Has Isreal actually signed a treaty in which it limits its respons to an invasion? (remember, a raiding party invaded Ireali soil and kidnapped people).

After such an invasion, any treaty that Isreal may have had with the Palestinians would pretty much be nullified, wouldn't it?

Also, why should one p[arty (Isreal) be expected to uphold these "obligations" when the other is apparently not under such obligations?

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 21 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  19  20  21   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2