In the end this conflict isn't about media bias (well maybe for you it is, propaganda is your weapon of choice) but who is to blame for all these deaths? who encourages peace and who encourages war?
I'm also surprised that a society that is so willing to endorse suicide bombings is so terribly affected by casualties... if you give your life up to kill Israelis thats good but if you die in a missle strike against someone who plans those suicide attacks its a terrible loss?
You argue that casualties of Israeli acts go unreported; if the leader of a terrorist cell launching Kassam's takes his child with him to those launches and the child is killed either by an Israeli helicopter or artillery fire at the launch site who is responsible for the child's death?
Most people would consider such a father to be criminally negligent. Since the child is in essence being used as a shield can he really be considered a civilian non-combatant?
Originally posted by PeachyThe problem is that the Israelies have their freedom fighters and the Palestinians have their freedom fighters.
The only people I encourage are the Freedom Fighters.
You would be one am sure if your land was robbed from you in the same fashion. You will understand the suffering far better if you lived one day amongst these people.
The pictures and facts in my links speak a thousand word. I say no more.
Attitudes like yours on both sides ensure that this bloodshed will continue for a long, long time.
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeewe might have a few wackos on our side but we catch them and lock them up, we don't have spontaneous cheering in the streets after every helicopter strike. we don't preach war to our children. we don't want to drive the palestinians into the sea. So what attitude is it that our side has that is prolonging this conflict?
The problem is that the Israelies have their freedom fighters and the Palestinians have their freedom fighters.
Attitudes like yours on both sides ensure that this bloodshed will continue for a long, long time.
EDIT: futhermore Israel has managed to make peace with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and while we may not be at peace with Lebanon and Syria those borders remain fairly quiet this indicates that the frequent military actions in Gaza/WB are not random acts of sadism.
Israel's track record shows our commitment to peace, the palestinian track record of broken agreements cease fires and promises (the Oslo accords being a prominent example) shows a preference for war. Complaining about casualties is a little on the hypocritical side.
Originally posted by PeachyYour 'freedom fighters' are rightly regarded as 'terrorists ' by the rest of mankind. You are out of step, as they say in the Army.
The only people I encourage are the Freedom Fighters.
You would be one am sure if your land was robbed from you in the same fashion. You will understand the suffering far better if you lived one day amongst these people.
The pictures and facts in my links speak a thousand word. I say no more.
There's a great book called 'Bad News From Israel' which analyses media coverage of the conflict.
It's hard to support either side when they both engage in the murder of civilians. My sympathies are greater for the Palestinians if only because of their much greater casualties and the hardship that has been inflicted upon them as a result of the conflict. Also I feel that, while it is difficult for either side to make progress independently, the Israeli government has a lot more power to worsen or improve things than the PA, and has done very little positively with that power.
1 edit
Originally posted by NargagunaWhether or not 'terrorist' is an appropriate label for Palestinian militants (and I would debate that), I think you are wrong to assume that a great majority of the world's people agree with you. Unless by 'mankind' you mean what GWB means when he says 'civilization'; Americans.
Your 'freedom fighters' are rightly regarded as 'terrorists ' by the rest of mankind. You are out of step, as they say in the Army.
1 edit
Originally posted by Villageri don't see how you can debate that people who blow up cafes, hotels, and busses are not terrorists. What would it take for you to label someone as a terrorist? Do you believe that no such thing exists and that any means of warfare is acceptable?
Whether or not 'terrorist' is an appropriate label for Palestinian militants (and I would debate that), I think you are wrong to assume that a great majority of the world's people agree with you. Unless by 'mankind' you mean what GWB means when he says 'civilization'; Americans.
Originally posted by Villageri think you have it backwards Israel may have more resources but as the last week's effort to return 1 soldier have so far been unsuccessful it is obvious that Israel is not in the driver's seat. Whereas the Hamas militants can end this bout of violence, how do you propose Israel should alleviate the situation?
There's a great book called 'Bad News From Israel' which analyses media coverage of the conflict.
It's hard to support either side when they both engage in the murder of civilians. My sympathies are greater for the Palestinians if only because of their much greater casualties and the hardship that has been inflicted upon them as a result of the conflict ...[text shortened]... o worsen or improve things than the PA, and has done very little positively with that power.
We certainly can't just abandon our soldier
Negotiation would endager the entire Israeli population to frequent kidnappings.
That only leaves fighting back.
Israel may be stronger but has less choices.
Originally posted by howardgeeWhat's wrong with supporting suicide bombers?
Terrible - all of it.
But you, Peachy - you encourage it by supporting suicide bombers.
So until you stop propogating violence, don't be hippocritical in condemning it.
I find it very hypocritical to suppose that it's alright to support the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima or the use of B52 carpet bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, but oppose any other form of warfare in which civilians die.
And considering suicide bombers at least don't rape their victims (which most invading armies do tend to do), then surely it can't be the worst form of warfare?
And considering that all forms of warfare create civilian casualties, indeed, Powell's great: "That's collatoral damage" comment symbolises just this, the only way you can really oppose suicide bombing is by becoming a pacifist.
Are you one yet?
Originally posted by shavixmirI make the distinction between the targetting of civilians and civilians killed in the process of attacking a military target.
What's wrong with supporting suicide bombers?
I find it very hypocritical to suppose that it's alright to support the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima or the use of B52 carpet bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, but oppose any other form of warfare in which civilians die.
And considering suicide bombers at least don't rape their victims (which most i ...[text shortened]... ay you can really oppose suicide bombing is by becoming a pacifist.
Are you one yet?
I neither support nor oppose the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima & Nagasaki for me its simply a historical fact, i wasn't even born when it occured so how can i judge? I would certainly be opposed to the use of Nuclear weapons today in anything short of WWIII and even then only as a last resort.
I certainly don't support carpet bombing or in general the targetting of civilian population. However you who support suicide bombings of civilian areas, which are the lowest form of warfare solely aimed at killing civilians and creating rampant fear among the population can't possibly protest anything that Israel does in Gaza or the West Bank.
you don't have to be a pacifist to oppose war, just being a common sense peaceful human being is enough. But in the event that a war is forced upon me I won't just surrender.
Physical force should always be a last resort, why is it that in the arab world its always the first and only means of solving any conflict?
Originally posted by aginisHow did Israel take control of its territory, friend? Did the Palestinians peacefully agree to leave their homes? In your view, does Israel share any of the blame for the current mess?
Physical force should always be a last resort, why is it that in the arab world its always the first and only means of solving any conflict?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI quote directly from various pages of wikipedia (that seems to be the primary trusted source on RHP)
How did Israel take control of its territory, friend? Did the Palestinians peacefully agree to leave their homes? In your view, does Israel share any of the blame for the current mess?
After World War I the Principal Allied Powers selected Britain as the Mandatory (or administrator) of Palestine. Palestine was territory previously held by the Turkish Empire. One quarter of the territory extended east from the Mediterranean to a line formed along the Jordan River, three quarters extended further east from the line of the Jordan. The entire territory is sometimes referred to as the British Mandate of Palestine. map available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate stated that the administration would "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home", while "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine". In addition, Article 25 of the mandate stated that all territory east of the Jordan was, in most part, at Britain's will, withheld from all provisions of the mandate
The plan partitioned the territory into Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area, encompassing Bethlehem, coming under international control.
On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the United States and Soviet Union agreed on the resolution. In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States.
MAP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_181
note that everything south of Beersheba is desert
Israeli decleration of independance
full text Hebrew&English translation http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_Israel
"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."
War of 1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on May 15, 1948, the Arab states publically proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.On the same day, however, the Arab League Secretary-General, Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".
Armistice at the end of the war (with color coded map)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements
1967 war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
On May 18, 1967, Egypt formally requested the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.
On May 22, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to "all ships flying Israel flags or carrying strategic materials", with effect from May 23. Israel viewed the closure of the Straits with alarm and demanded the US and UK open the straits as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Harold Wilson's proposal of an international maritime force to quell the crisis was adopted by US President Johnson, but received little international support. The Israeli cabinet met on May 23 and decided to wait 48 hours for the Tiran straits to be reopened before launching a pre-emptive strike, as well as sending Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Abba Eban to Washington to meet with President Johnson. The US administration insisted that Israel allow more time for a diplomatic solution to be reached, and warned Israel not to attack. A similar message was received in Israel from the Soviet Premier, Alexey Kosygin, and the Israeli cabinet decided on May 28 to wait an additional 2 weeks before taking further action.
In his speech to Arab trade unionists on May 26, Nasser announced: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle will be a general one... and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."
Result of 1967 war
Territory changes: Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
We went from 55% of palestine (including negev desert ) in 1948
to 78% in 1949 to All of palestine in 67 + golan heights + Sinai desert
Further Additions after the 1973 war. If the arab world is unhappy about the territory Israel now controls they have only their own stupidity and hatred to blame.
oh yes and one palestinians were to some degree or other encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the arab armies.
Originally posted by aginisYou didn't actually answer my question, but I take it you don't apportion any blame to Israel, which is hopelessly simplistic.
We went from 55% of palestine (including negev desert ) in 1948
to 78% in 1949 to All of palestine in 67 + golan heights + Sinai desert
Further Additions after the 1973 war. If the arab world is unhappy about the territory Israel now controls they have only their own stupidity and hatred to blame.
As for 1967,
" "The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
(http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html)
I take it you think the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 was the heroic action of Israeli freedom fighters not the killing of civilians by terrorists.
History isn't black and white, it's red all over.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI believe that the formation of a Jewish State was not only justified but neccesary in view of a long history of persecution all over the world. Particularly in the aftermath of the holocaust and the destruction of German and European Jewry which was the heart of Jewish civilization at the time. The creation of said state in the ancient area of Israel, seems only natural and right (as oppose to somewhere else). Origanally this land was purchased from ottoman and arab owners, admittedly their was tension between arab tennants and the new israeli owners when the tennants were evicted, particularly with regard to trees which belonged to the tennants for which they did not recieve compensation however this is an economic not political or religious dispute. Given the small area of the original 1948 borders i don't see the creation of the State of Israel as casus belli (grievances that justify declaration of war.)
You didn't actually answer my question, but I take it you don't apportion any blame to Israel, which is hopelessly simplistic.
As for 1967,
" "The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified ...[text shortened]... of civilians by terrorists.
History isn't black and white, it's red all over.
Given that it was not Israel who initiated the 1948 war i see the annexation of territories captured as justifiable. If you're gonna start a war be prepared to accept the consequences.
The 1956 war left the sinai as a demilitarized zone with UN peacekeeping forces patrolling the area. In 1967 Egyptian forces asked the UN peacekeepers to leave and started massing tanks and soldiers on the Israeli border, combined with Alliances with other arab countries and Israeli intelligence strongly indicated an upcomming attack. Enough to justify a preemptory strike against the Egyptian Airforce. Once again had Egypt,Syria, Jordan and Lebanon pursued a peaceful coexistence with Israel things would be different.
As to the current situation of the palestinians it is clear that the arab world does not seek a two state solution, for that matter neither do most palestinians. A resolution of the palestinian crisis would involve the consent of the entire arab world to the existence of a Jewish State it is the stubborn refusal to accept such a State that fuels the current conflict. I therefore apportion most of the blame on the arab world.
to say that most of the blame lies on the Israeli side is equivalent to saying the Israel should not exist.
As to the King David Hotel Bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
The Irgun exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police).
This would be a military target. As to the high civilian casualties
A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of the King David Hotel before the attack and also delivered to the French consulate and the Palestine Post newspaper. According to Irgun sources, the message read "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned."
Irgun representatives have always claimed that the warning was given well in advance so that adequate time was available to evacuate the hotel. Menachem Begin writes (p. 221, The Revolt, ed.) that the telephone message was delivered 25 - 27 minutes before the explosion. The British authorities denied for many years that there had been a warning at all, but the leaking of the internal police report on the bombing during the 1970s proved that a warning had indeed been received. However, the report claimed that the warning was only just being delivered to the officer in charge as the bomb went off.
perhaps not the most honorable form of warfare but certainly not the equivalent of Hamas tactics. I never claimed that no Israeli has behaved in an inappropriate manner, but as a state Israel does not engage in or support terrorism.