Israel warns: free soldier or PM dies

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So you're blaming the Israeli/Arab conflict on Hamas?!?!?!? That's a little ignorant, don't you think? This conflict runs much deeper than a democratically elected Palestinian government.

Glass houses.......note:

The reality behind Gaza is that it belongs to the Palestinians anyway.

Please link the map that shows Gaza as belonging to Palestinians before 2005. The fact is that before 1967 gaza was governed by Egypt (48-67), the British (19-48), and the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians have governed it since AUg. 2005 - and a **** poor job they have done.

Israel illegally took that land away in a illegitimate war.

The Six-day war was a legitamite response to the military build-up by Syria, Jordan and Egypt along Israel's boarders in May-June 1967. The build up was never labeled as an 'exercise' or 'test' by those nations. Israel issued a legal pre-emptive stirke. Only the nations that lost that war think otherwise.

Israel, if it bothered to follow international law, should consist of pre 1967 borders.

Israel was happy to do just that. Four wars changed their minds. The UN resolutions call for Israel to return to negotiated boarders involving a return on territories, not all the territories, not some of the territories, just territories, in return for negotiated ppeace agreements. Where are the agreements?

Of corse Israel isn't going to do this, instead they are going to erect an illegal wall, claiming land that is not theirs,

The Israeli Supreme COurt has forced the Israeli govm't to move the fence to ensure as little disruption to Palestinian farmers as possible. Any land on one side of the fence has been exchanged for land at other parts of the fence.

but hey, they gave up Gaza. They were supposed to give up Gaza a long time ago,

In exchange for peace!!! What they got were 1,000 missles shot at them! Missles that can now reach ports and oil depots.

but now they martyr it, and package it to make it look like the Palestinians are not negotiating or compromising anything in return.

They aren't.

Why does anybody do anything that is radical, such as that of kidnapping a political figure? It is clear that a group is being repressed, and feeling like nobody is listening to them, so they resort to whatever can get their message across. The democratically elected Hamas government is not being recognized, and therefor they have to do whatever is in their power to try and get their message relayed.

Well, Hamas could have tried....gee, I don't know.....Governing!!! they could have reeled in their military wing, renouned violence and started the press releases on how they are building schools and roads and implimenting laws and a court system and a free press..etc. BUT NO! The first thing Hamas representatives did after Israel withdrew from Gaza was EXECUTE Fatah leaders in the street. That's some elected government.

I am not supporting the kidnapping, but obviously when groups have to resort to such an act, there has to be more to the story.

So every criminal act has a justification and is the victim's fault?

Charles Krauthamer's latest article in Time noted that now the Palestinians cannot claim the standard "we are occupied" excuse. The rockets are being shot into pre-1967 Israel. The soldier was kidnapped from an outpost in pre-1967 Israel. This is one psudo-state attacking a UN-member state.

Hamas has a choice - show the world that they can be good governors and make things better or continue with the terrorism show. So far they picked terrorism.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

About two years BEFORE Hamas was democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people, Israel made the decision to begin killing the very top of the Hamas leadership. . . . . .

After three or four of these leaders were killed in rapid succession, including the top spiritual advisor, Hamas STOPPED attacks against Israel . . . . . in fact, Hamas, if I'm not mistaken, didn't claim responsibility for an attack on Israel for a year and a half prior to the election.

So . . . . . . now that these attacks appear to have resumed AND can't help but have the appearance of being official Palestinian government policy, why wouldn't Israel think its a good idea to resume killing the very top of Hamas leadership, democratically elected or not?

It certainly worked before . . . . and targetting specific individuals, the guys actually responsible, seems to be a little less bloodthirsty than flattening the place, as the Israeli's could certainly do.

I've said before I had absolutely no problem at all with Hamas being democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people, unlike other panic-stricken people out there. Good for them. Come over here for a hearty handshake and a hug.

By being elected, however, the actions of Hamas have now become offical government policy with all the accountability that goes along with it.

They can't hide behind other people who say they can't control them . . . . which is what they used to do.

Maybe its time for Hamas to grow up . . . . . before they get their heads blown off.

Cowperson

You're joking right?

So if government sanctioned assassination is okay for Israel, it must be okay for any other countries/governments right? Hamas can knock off the Israeli PM, N. Korea could assassinate Bush, right?

Not to mention, although DFF already has, there is the matter of Israel's military killing that family enjoying an afternoon on the beach.

Why the double standard? Israel should be JUST AS accountable for their actions as Hamas or any other lunatic, extremist government.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So you're blaming the Israeli/Arab conflict on Hamas?!?!?!? That's a little ignorant, don't you think? This conflict runs much deeper than a democratically elected Palestinian government.

The reality behind Gaza is that it belongs to the Palestinians anyway. Israel illegally took that land away in a illegitimate war. Israel, if it bothered to follow international law, should consist of pre 1967 borders. Of corse Israel isn't going to do this, instead they are going to erect an illegal wall, claiming land that is not theirs, but hey, they gave up Gaza. They were supposed to give up Gaza a long time ago, but now they martyr it, and package it to make it look like the Palestinians are not negotiating or compromising anything in return.

Why does anybody do anything that is radical, such as that of kidnapping a political figure? It is clear that a group is being repressed, and feeling like nobody is listening to them, so they resort to whatever can get their message across. The democratically elected Hamas government is not being recognized, and therefor they have to do whatever is in their power to try and get their message relayed. The FLQ did it in Quebec, and I believe that if Israel and other states around the world took Hamas seriously, this wouldn't have happened.

I am not supporting the kidnapping, but obviously when groups have to resort to such an act, there has to be more to the story.

The Anti-Semetism runs deep in your blood, doesn't it?

Maybe you should look up your BS before you post it.

In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. Several Arab attacks on Jewish civilians soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.
On May 14, 1948, before the expiry of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight on May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed.

The British were unable to come up with a solution that would satisfy either Arabs or Jews, so in 1947, they handed the problem to the newly-founded United Nations, which developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. The plan was ratified in November 1947. The mandate expired on May 14, 1948 and British troops pulled out of Palestine. The Jews of Palestine promptly declared the creation of the State of Israel, which was recognized by several Western countries immediately.

I would say if the UN gave Israel their part of the land, they rightfully deserve it. Also, dating back to ancient Bible times, who's land was it?

In the late 1800s, Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann founded Zionism, a political movement dedicated to the creation of a Jewish state. They saw a state of Israel as a necessary refuge for Jewish victims of oppression, especially in Russia, where pogroms were decimating the Jewish population.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You're joking right?

So if government sanctioned assassination is okay for Israel, it must be okay for any other countries/governments right? Hamas can knock off the Israeli PM, N. Korea could assassinate Bush, right?

Not to mention, although DFF already has, there is the matter of Israel's military killing that family enjoying an afternoon on the beach.

Why the double standard? Israel should be JUST AS accountable for their actions as Hamas or any other lunatic, extremist government.

Certainly they should be accountable for their actions, but what Cowperson is saying, is that Israel has created peace before with such actions, why wouldn't it work now?

[Cowperson]

You're joking right?

Nope. Dead serious.

So if government sanctioned assassination is okay for Israel, it must be okay for any other countries/governments right? Hamas can knock off the Israeli PM, N. Korea could assassinate Bush, right?

North Korea certainly has, in the past, gone out of its way to assassinate officials of foreign governments. Clearly they have a history of that.

You'd have to be completely daft to think that Hamas hasn't put some thought into and even attempted to assassinate an Israeli Prime Minister.

We certainly know that most major global leaders are, for some unknown reason to yourself, surrounded by clouds of security . . . . just like Palestinian leaders in fact . . . . . you should have taken a drive through the G-8 summit security at Kananaskis the day after they had left. What a lot of bother for nothing . . . . in your mind at least.

Why the double standard? Israel should be JUST AS accountable for their actions as Hamas or any other lunatic, extremist government.

No double standard at all.

In fact, that's the standard I clearly said should apply. Go ahead and apply it to the Israeli's if you want to. Be my guest. Clearly Israeli leaders are at risk of assassination for what you perceive to be inflammatory actions.

Thanks for agreeing with me. When people like Hamas are duly elected, their actions reflect government policy and they can't hide behind the rationale they've used before.

If they continue to insist they're at war with Israel, then why be surprised if Israel says, "Okay" and kills them?

That's what I said.

That, in turn, is an entirely new concept for Hamas. They appear to think being elected gave them some kind of cloak of invisibility. Not true.

When Hamas was elected I said "congratulations" on the result but also added, "now that crap you're pulling is government policy, with all the heavy responsibilities those actions might bring to yourself."

Frankly, given the demented and immature nature of Hamas leadership, fighting a zero percentage battle it has zero hope of winning, the arrival of this day is hardly a surprise.

Amusingly, the left is fond of saying that old men should be sent to the front line instead of young boys . . . . that would result in fewer wars they say.

Well, here you have a clear case where the old men can be put in the bullseye . . . . .

Cowperson

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not to mention, although DFF already has, there is the matter of Israel's military killing that family enjoying an afternoon on the beach.

The IDF (Israel) investigation confirmed that is was not thier missle, conversly the PA investigation confirmed that it was not their landmine.
of course niether group has a altirior motive or anything. Both are completely unbiased in their findings.

I have yet to read in independant account of that incident - most journalists are relying on sources from one side or the other.

Of note though - journalists do have motivation to blame Israel. How so you may ask? Well, pro-Israel journalists routinely lose thier Palestinian guides or are denied help from the PA if they print articles that the PA sees as pro-Israel, which would hamper a journalists work in a hotbed of news.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You're joking right?

Nope. Dead serious.

So if government sanctioned assassination is okay for Israel, it must be okay for any other countries/governments right? Hamas can knock off the Israeli PM, N. Korea could assassinate Bush, right?

North Korea certainly has, in the past, gone out of its way to assassinate officials of foreign governments. Clearly they have a history of that.

You'd have to be completely daft to think that Hamas hasn't put some thought into and even attempted to assassinate an Israeli Prime Minister.

We certainly know that most major global leaders are, for some unknown reason to yourself, surrounded by clouds of security . . . . just like Palestinian leaders in fact . . . . . you should have taken a drive through the G-8 summit security at Kananaskis the day after they had left. What a lot of bother for nothing . . . . in your mind at least.

Cowperson

You seem to have missed my point. Recognizing that world leaders are targets for assassination is a far different thing than suggesting it is acceptable for any nation to adopt it as stated policy.

"Kidnap our soldier, we'll kill your leader." Sounds like a reasonable policy does it?

Maybe Canada should have adopted a similar position in the recent past - we could have justifiably taken Bush out over beef or softwood lumber.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You seem to have missed my point. Recognizing that world leaders are targets for assassination is a far different thing than suggesting it is acceptable for any nation to adopt it as stated policy.

"Kidnap our soldier, we'll kill your leader." Sounds like a reasonable policy does it?

Maybe Canada should have adopted a similar position in the recent past - we could have justifiably taken Bush out over beef or softwood lumber.

Apples and oranges. Can't compare high taxes to kidnapping.

Now try the equation with the Canadian-Iranian journalist that was executed by Iran - feel any different?

Give this columnist a look: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...6/1670431.html

He mentions a few examples of Canadians held/ececuted abroad.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

"Kidnap our soldier, we'll kill your leader." Sounds like a reasonable policy does it?

Yes, I believe it does. Maybe nations will think twice before Kidnapping Israeli troops/citizens.

HAMAS needs to get its militant wing under control, else there won't be much left of the government known as a terrorist organization.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

"Kidnap our soldier, we'll kill your leader." Sounds like a reasonable policy does it?

Nice try but Israel is making that declaration to a "country" with a government that continues to insist, in spite of international condemnation and sanctions, that its at war with Israel, in fact, calling for the utter elimination of the latter.

That's the distinction.

If the Palestinian government continues to insist that is the nature of the relationship it has with Israel, and engages in acts to reinforce it, then obviously leaders are on the table as they would be in any conflict . . . . and maybe soon on a slab.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The Anti-Semetism runs deep in your blood, doesn't it?

Maybe you should look up your BS before you post it.

Does anti-Israeli-ism = anti-Semitism? Can you dislike the actions and policies (or even existence) of the state of Israel, and not be a racist?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Does anti-Israeli-ism = anti-Semitism? Can you dislike the actions and policies (or even existence) of the state of Israel, and not be a racist?

Disliking actions or policies is not the same as blaming Israel for existing, or blaming them for the current situation.

Israel is a light of democracy in a troubled region. Its time we all realized that, and quit blaming them for the situation they are in.

[CaramonLS]

The move is effective to say the least. In order to win this conflict or secure peace - you need to crush the spirits of your enemies and their will to fight.

It definately isn't the Humanitarian way to fight a war, especially when you are supposed to be taking the "moral highground", but I have no doubts that it will actually prove effective.

The US in Iraq for example could defeat the insurgency much faster if they wanted to string terrorists up by their toenails and hold public torture sessions in the streets.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Does anti-Israeli-ism = anti-Semitism? Can you dislike the actions and policies (or even existence) of the state of Israel, and not be a racist?

On first gloss, I think your questions all kind of involve different types of disagreement.

1. "Does anti-Israeli-ism = anti-Semitism?"

No, not at all, I think (reading between the lines) we agree here.

2. Can you dislike the actions and policies (or even existence) of the state of Israel, and not be a racist?

part A: (actions and policies) Of course ... disagreeing with North Korea's policies doesn't necessarily mean you are racist towards North Koreans.

part B: (existence) This could be interpreted many different ways and I think a positive response to this question could be construed as racism a lot easier than the others.

Just my thoughts though ...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The move is effective to say the least. In order to win this conflict or secure peace - you need to crush the spirits of your enemies and their will to fight.

It definately isn't the Humanitarian way to fight a war, especially when you are supposed to be taking the "moral highground", but I have no doubts that it will actually prove effective.

The US in Iraq for example could defeat the insurgency much faster if they wanted to string terrorists up by their toenails and hold public torture sessions in the streets.

Right on. The biggest problem the US has in Iraq is their desire to be morally responsible. Fight fire with fire.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The US in Iraq for example could defeat the insurgency much faster if they wanted to string terrorists up by their toenails and hold public torture sessions in the streets.

Yeah, that's true. It only stands to reason that a daily spectacle of American soldiers publicly torturing Iraqis in the town square would do wonders for the Yank objective. If that kind of thing were to go on then maybe the Iraqi ingrates would finally pull out the flowers and have the parade they were supposed to have a few years ago when the Marines showed up in Baghdad.

At the very least a strictly regulated public torture program would go a long way towards ending those suicide bombings. Any martyr with a lick of sense isn't going to blow himself to smithereens if he has to worry about getting a public flogging after the fact.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Azure

Right on. The biggest problem the US has in Iraq is their desire to be morally responsible. Fight fire with fire.

Right...... that would be a great example set by what is supposed to be forefront nation of democracy for the entire world and it would also contribute to the USA's already sterling approval rating among the rest of the world.

The worst thing the US could do in that region is look like hypocrites (they already look stupid with the whoel Guantanimo Bay thing). "We are bringing democracy, fair justice and equality under the law; but for the time being, lets unlawfully hold hostages, torture them, and threaten to kill them on video cassette and send it off to their friends and family"

Hopefully you are never in charge at any government level with that attitude.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Right on. The biggest problem the US has in Iraq is their desire to be morally responsible. Fight fire with fire.

So I guess you are unfamiliar with what has happened at Abu Gharib prison then? That was pretty moral.

Let alone the entire war itself, which is an illegal war.

What about lying to the entire world about the weapons of mass destruction they had concrete evidence of?

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the U.S. being morally responsible...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So I guess you are unfamiliar with what has happened at Abu Gharib prison then? That was pretty moral.

Let alone the entire war itself, which is an illegal war.

What about lying to the entire world about the weapons of mass destruction they had concrete evidence of?

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the U.S. being morally responsible...

Almost a word for word quote from the Moonbat left of the their summation of the Iraqi war minus the Oil.

Lets start with the terrible abuses at Abu Gharib.

Brought up by those who love to discredit the war and the US in general. Anti-Americanism tends to be the main motivator. You'd think the Americans were lining up 10's of thousands for gassing. Unfortunately for those that believe this load of stink....The abuses by the Americans at Abu Gharib can be summed up as such: Pink panties on head, naked male pyramid building photo opportunities by real losers who are now behind bars themselves. No torture took place. No one was murdered.

Illigal war. Well considering that Saddam had broken the treaty that hs government signed from the last Gulf War saying that if he did not live up to his end of the bargain the coalitions forces were within their rights to attack makes this point is moot. The UN being useless (anyone truely not beleive that the UN is ineffective in its own mandate now? Dafur?) couldn't sum up enough will power to do what was needed. As a matter of fact they were on Saddam's payroll.

WMD. Well they did find them. 500 of them. To believe that the Bush administration lied about WMD is to believe that the Russian, French, CIA, British intelligence and the UN itself lied about their belief that Saddam had these weapons. Thats ignoring the the startling facts that Saddam harrassed weapons inspectors and then eventually kicked them out. YES, VERY NORMAL governmental procedures when you are NOT hiding something.

But lets not let these things get in the way.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Glass houses.......note:

Please link the map that shows Gaza as belonging to Palestinians before 2005. The fact is that before 1967 gaza was governed by Egypt (48-67), the British (19-48), and the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians have governed it since AUg. 2005 - and a **** poor job they have done.

The Six-day war was a legitamite response to the military build-up by Syria, Jordan and Egypt along Israel's boarders in May-June 1967. The build up was never labeled as an 'exercise' or 'test' by those nations. Israel issued a legal pre-emptive stirke. Only the nations that lost that war think otherwise.

Israel was happy to do just that. Four wars changed their minds. The UN resolutions call for Israel to return to negotiated boarders involving a return on territories, not all the territories, not some of the territories, just territories, in return for negotiated ppeace agreements. Where are the agreements?

The Israeli Supreme COurt has forced the Israeli govm't to move the fence to ensure as little disruption to Palestinian farmers as possible. Any land on one side of the fence has been exchanged for land at other parts of the fence.

In exchange for peace!!! What they got were 1,000 missles shot at them! Missles that can now reach ports and oil depots.

They aren't.

Well, Hamas could have tried....gee, I don't know.....Governing!!! they could have reeled in their military wing, renouned violence and started the press releases on how they are building schools and roads and implimenting laws and a court system and a free press..etc. BUT NO! The first thing Hamas representatives did after Israel withdrew from Gaza was EXECUTE Fatah leaders in the street. That's some elected government.



So every criminal act has a justification and is the victim's fault?

Charles Krauthamer's latest article in Time noted that now the Palestinians cannot claim the standard "we are occupied" excuse. The rockets are being shot into pre-1967 Israel. The soldier was kidnapped from an outpost in pre-1967 Israel. This is one psudo-state attacking a UN-member state.

Hamas has a choice - show the world that they can be good governors and make things better or continue with the terrorism show. So far they picked terrorism.

Great Post!