Originally posted by aginisDid you read my post in which Begin clearly contradicts this?
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.
As for the King David Hotel, military schmilitary--Israel was not a state yet, so those were not soldiers who planted the bomb but freedom-fighters / terrorists; plus that thinking won't do you much good since every Israeli citizen who has completed military service is a potential military target, and if there are kids around heck it's collateral damage. Time for Israel to be completely honest; same goes for the Palestinians.
Originally posted by aginisI didn't say they weren't terrorists - I said I'd debate the use of the term. My problem is that it is far too often used in a manner that is designed to delegitimise the violence of the enemy, whilst using much nicer words for violence one supports. Are suicide bombers terrorists? Of course they are - terror is the purpose and result of thier actions. But to use such a term exclusively for such attacks is disingenuous - you have to accept that it applies to all manner of state violence. If you use the word properly, the governments of Israel, Britain and the US are the biggest terrorists in the world. If you don't like the consequences of that definition (intending to and actually causing terror) then you cannot justly apply it soley to suicide bombers.
i 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?
Tangentially, as you ask, I don't think there's a real difference between a Palestinian suicide bombing in an Israeli cafe and an Israeli missile attack against a Palestinian beach resort. They are both the actions of morally disgusting people.
1 edit
Originally posted by aginisSome Palestinians kidnap a soldier (and in war, soldiers are fair game after all), so Israel kidnaps dozens of the PA government and begin military actions which harm civilians. This incident illustrates my point rather well, actually - the Israeli soldier wasn't kidnapped by the PA, but all of Israel's responses have been from the government. The PA is caught in the middle - unable to fully control all of those who hate Israel, and unable to resist when Israel responds with it's guns, lest the cries of 'terrorists! terrorists!' resound once more from those in Israel who think that the right to kidnap and murder is theirs alone.
i 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?
We certainly can't just abandon our soldier
N ...[text shortened]... t kidnappings.
That only leaves fighting back.
Israel may be stronger but has less choices.
Why can't you abandon your soldier? Because you'd rather retaliate by kidnapping dozens of Palestinians and killing their civilians to 'teach 'em a lesson'? You negtiated for prisoner swaps before, why not again?
You forget whose violence ended the one year Hamas ceasefire - the Israeli bombing of that Palestinian beach. In this instance at least, it is the Palestinian militants who are reacting to Israeli provocation.
Originally posted by Villageryes terrible those israeli missle strikes against beach resorts but i seem to forget when that was can you offer me a reminder (a link perhaps?) And when is it that you are alleging that Israel intended to cause terror?
I didn't say they weren't terrorists - I said I'd debate the use of the term. My problem is that it is far too often used in a manner that is designed to delegitimise the violence of the enemy, whilst using much nicer words for violence one supports. Are suicide bombers terrorists? Of course they are - terror is the purpose and result of thier actions. But ...[text shortened]... gainst a Palestinian beach resort. They are both the actions of morally disgusting people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5065008.stm
What do you suppose it was intended to cause - gratitude and a warm fuzzy feeling? There could be no better example of terrorism.
Also, if you are thinking 'there's no proof that those missiles were sanctioned by the Israeli government' this may be true. But it leads us to another parallel: if the actions of rogue Palestinian militants is a cause for Israel to detain half the PA and restart murderous incursions into Gaza, why are the actions of rogue Israeli soldiers excusable with an apology? Do you not see the injustice here?
Originally posted by VillagerI'm not convinced that the shell was from Israeli artillery but even allowing that it was Israeli artillery it certainly wasn't aimed at the beach, the target was a qassam launchpad. However much Israel takes care to avoid civilian casualties Hamas policy of firing from dense residential areas is bound to cause civilian casualties.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5065008.stm
What do you suppose it was intended to cause - gratitude and a warm fuzzy feeling? There could be no better example of terrorism.
Also, if you are thinking 'there's no proof that those missiles were sanctioned by the Israeli government' this may be true. But it leads us to another parallel: if ...[text shortened]... tions of rogue Israeli soldiers excusable with an apology? Do you not see the injustice here?
I ABSOLUTELY am not willing to believe it was fired by rogue Israelis.
Honestly, am I happy that those people are dead? no. Does it break my heart? Also no.
As for terrorism if Israel fired an artillery shell aimed to kill people at a crowded beach i think we could manage to do a lot better than 7 dead.
b]I'm not convinced that the shell was from Israeli artillery ............... am I happy that those people are dead? no. Does it break my heart? Also no.O thats ok then.. i will come over to your house and build a house in your front garden and steal all your utility supplies... then lets see what you do about it......YOU MUPPET
As for terrorism if Israel fired an artillery shell aimed to kill people at a crowded beach i think we could manage to do a lot better than 7 dead.[/b]
Originally posted by aginisYour history is 90% BS.
I 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 ...[text shortened]... d in an inappropriate manner, but as a state Israel does not engage in or support terrorism.
First, the UN General Assembly had no authority under the UN Charter to "divvy" up a Mandate; its resolutions on this matter were purely advisory. The Security Council (which might have had such a power) never approved the GA plan mainly because of opposition from the majority of people who lived in Palestine. The Jews in Palestine embarked on an offensive campaign against their Palestinian neighbors
BEFORE the establishment of Israel the purpose being to force the Arabs from their homes so a full Jewish state could be established. A civil war
was ongoing when the Zionists declared Israel a state; the Arab occupants of Palestinians, the majority, asked for assistance from their Arab neighbors. Thus, the Zionists started the war. After winning it, they promptly made it impossible for virtually any Arab who had been driven out or fled the fighting to return to their land in "Israel" thus creating the refugee problem. The land and property of the refugees was seized without compensation.
Your 1967 version is a fairy story as BDN as pointed out. Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers on its territory after Egypt had evicted them; if they were soooooooooo concerned about an attack they would have welcomed the UN. Israel then staged a massive sneak attack against the air forces of all their Arab neighbors and a few non-neighbors, not just the Egyptian air force. After this war of aggression by Israel, the UN Security Council in resolution 242 re-iterated that international law no longer allowed the acquistion of territory by force and insisted that Israel withdraw from the territories occupied. Israel has refused to comply with this resolution in any meaningful way for 39 years.
The Palestinian government has accepted a two state solution, but Israel has refused to negotiate in good faith with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people since Oslo. They have repeatedly violated the terms of the Oslo accord. They have continued to oppress and attack the people of Palestine. If Israel was so interested in peace, they would agree to sit down and negotiate with the Palestinian leadership, not dictate who is allowed to be the Palestinian leadership.
Israel is a state in massive violation of UN Security Council resolutions and traditional international law. It is time for the leadership of your nation to abide by these and grant the Palestinian people what they are entitled to by law and justice; a state of their own free from the domination of foreigners.
Originally posted by aginisYou're missing the much larger and more important point - One side has to stop shooting. And yes that includes bombs, guns, air strikes, artillery, whatever the hell you want to call it.
I'm not convinced that the shell was from Israeli artillery but even allowing that it was Israeli artillery it certainly wasn't aimed at the beach, the target was a qassam launchpad. However much Israel takes care to avoid civilian casualties Hamas policy of firing from dense residential areas is bound to cause civilian casualties.
I ABSOLUTELY am not willin ...[text shortened]... imed to kill people at a crowded beach i think we could manage to do a lot better than 7 dead.
Until at least one side sits down and truly negotiates in good faith for peace... ALL of you deserve the misery you're experiencing.
So, either start working towards peace, or go ahead and totally slaughter one another so the rest of the world will no longer have to listen to the constant whining from both sides.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes and all of them are to be stripped of their toys and made to live and work side by side for a couple of generations. That would work, but its never gonna happen! :'(
that whole region should be declared a UN protectorate for 50 years.
What is going to happen is a continued spiral of violence against each other until time ends. It has been going on for 5000 years now, and when the world ends there will be still two guys sitting in the sand throwing rocks at each other. :'(🙁:'(