Hope and Dispair in the ME

[transplant99]

From top to bottom, this post is a complete load of garbage.

I will say the same about your rhetoric...which makes us even.

Your analogies are flawed to the state of being laughable

Again, as yours go, so do mine. Even.

your 'history' contains as much fact as my turds and the hilarious resort of ageism reminds me of a senile, racist old man who can't defend any of his points of view without it.

Ahhh...I knew it was in you. Name calling. Lovely and thank you. Proves my point even more.

"Ageism" isnt some fallacy (your favorite term apparently) but more about real life experience. Something you truly cannot argue. What is learned in those years and how one applies them to their life is completely up for debate however.

Do you disagree you might actually be more educated and/or informed about things years hence?

And i just need to know...since you call me "old" and "senile" what age does one become old, and at what point is one senile exactly...when they disagree with you?

Just curious.

Too much for you to handle from a senile old man?

There's a reason I don't bother replying to you.

Ditto.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Too much for you to handle from a senile old man?

Yes, I concede you're too much for me to handle.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes, I concede you're too much for me to handle.

No doubt. Well answered.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Basically from a historical claim, the Jews have a right to that land, from a financial standpoint when Palestine landowners sold much of the land to the Jews. From a legal standpoint based on both the League of Nations and the UN's proclamation that the Jews had a pre-existing right to a country of thier own based where it stands now, and from a moral right the Jews had a right to thier own homeland that they could defend based on thier historically bad treatment by the Germans, the Russians and other Nations.

So look at the Arab claim to the land: an early tribal presence in the region, then continued arab rule there from around 650 AD for about 1 millennium, followed by predominantly arab presence during the Ottoman Empire. At the time off partition, Arabs owned roughly 50% of the land, with a mere 8% being under Jewish ownership (the remainder owned by the state). The UN attempt to create an Israeli state awarded about 45% of modern day Israel to Arab control, including Gaza and the West Bank, of course, but also the entire area around Jerusalem, and much of the northern coastal area near Lebanon. Historically, legally and financially, the Arabs have as much a claim to the land as the Jews. The only difference is that the Jewish population has successfully defended and expanded their territory through military success over the last half century.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But in Israel you have an entire population of innocent citizens that have done nothing to harm anyone. They simply exist, go to work, raise their families and pay their taxes.

But in Israel AND Lebanon AND Palestine you have an entire population of innocent citizens that have done nothing to harm anyone. They simply exist, go to work, raise their families and pay their taxes.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

But in Israel AND Lebanon AND Palestine you have an entire population of innocent citizens that have done nothing to harm anyone. They simply exist, go to work, raise their families and pay their taxes.

Yet both Lebanon and Palestine have fanatics in their country hellbent on taking that same right away from the Israeli's.

Israel DOES NOT have a group set on taking away Lebanese lands/rights. They merely defend themselves when attacked.

Therefore the solution would be to get rid of those 'two' groups, and each country could have citizens that only go to work, go to church and pay taxes. Right?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yet both Lebanon and Palestine have fanatics in their country hellbent on taking that same right away from the Israeli's.

Israel DOES NOT have a group set on taking away Lebanese lands/rights. They merely defend themselves when attacked.

Right?

Wrong, you should do some more reading before passing judgement.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yet both Lebanon and Palestine have fanatics in their country hellbent on taking that same right away from the Israeli's.

Israel DOES NOT have a group set on taking away Lebanese lands/rights. They merely defend themselves when attacked.

Therefore the solution would be to get rid of those 'two' groups, and each country could have citizens that only go to work, go to church and pay taxes. Right?

They don't currently have such a group, because with the region's dominant military, they have no need to. They've taken away Palestinian land/rights through military action and with bulldozers. As well, early in the state's history, there were the Irgun and Lehi groups, who were very active in capturing and executing British and Arabs, including the attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin where more than a hundred Arab civilians were killed, and the King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91, some of whom were military personnel, many of whom were innocent civilians. Some accounts suggest that the slaughter of the villagers of Deir Yassin (who had, incidentally, agreed to a policy of non-aggression with Israel prior to being killed), was a major factor in prompting other Palestinians in the region to flee their homes and become refugees. The Arabs had equally horrific attacks during the era (particularly an attack on a medical hospital in the days immediately after the Deir Yassin attack, where the entire medical staff and many patients were killed). To portray either population as innocents incapable of atrocity is simply wrong.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Wrong, you should do some more reading before passing judgement.

Indeed.

Thanks for the explanation Octothorp.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by octothorp

They don't currently have such a group, because with the region's dominant military, they have no need to. They've taken away Palestinian land/rights through military action and with bulldozers. As well, early in the state's history, there were the Irgun and Lehi groups, who were very active in capturing and executing British and Arabs, including the attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin where more than a hundred Arab civilians were killed, and the King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91, some of whom were military personnel, many of whom were innocent civilians. Some accounts suggest that the slaughter of the villagers of Deir Yassin (who had, incidentally, agreed to a policy of non-aggression with Israel prior to being killed), was a major factor in prompting other Palestinians in the region to flee their homes and become refugees. The Arabs had equally horrific attacks during the era (particularly an attack on a medical hospital in the days immediately after the Deir Yassin attack, where the entire medical staff and many patients were killed). To portray either population as innocents incapable of atrocity is simply wrong.

Just to elaborate further, the massacre at Deir Yassin was the catalyst for the surrounding arab armies to come to palestinian 'rescue'. Most civilians did abandon their homes because of exagerated fears of jewish barbarism. To help draw the surrounding arab armies to their to their side, the massacre at deir yassin was manipulated through misinformation to be even worse than it was. Palestinian arabs abandon their homes because of these fears, an unintended consequence, and have since not been allowed to return.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just to elaborate further, the massacre at Deir Yassin was the catalyst for the surrounding arab armies to come to palestinian 'rescue'. Most civilians did abandon their homes because of exagerated fears of jewish barbarism. To help draw the surrounding arab armies to their to their side, the massacre at deir yassin was manipulated through misinformation to be even worse than it was. Palestinian arabs abandon their homes because of these fears, an unintended consequence, and have since not been allowed to return.

Good point. Perhaps that history explains in part why civilians on both sides--despite rocket attacks, bombings, threatening leaflets dropped from the sky and dire reports in the media--refuse to leave their homes and villages. So much of the history of the region revolves around people leaving their homes for a brief period of time, and then not being allowed to return.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

^^^^

I think you just proclaimed the majority of governments around the world as being illegitimate. I can't think of many governments that have not, at some time, wanted to wipe something from the face of the planet. Not too very long ago the United States wanted to wipe Communism from the face of the planet (they still do actually, but that's another story), so does that question the United States government's legitimacy? Just because you don't agree with their poliotics does not mean they are not a legitimate party for the people that wish them to be their representatives.

Easterners always thought the Reform Party was filled with racists and radicals that would destroy Canada. Were they right, or were the people in the west that knew the party best? How about the Bloc Quebequois? They have a pretty narrow focus and represent the wishes of the minority in their province, are they not legitimate?

Lanny, do facts even matter to you? Whenever anyone posts anything, the end result as far as you are concerned is that America is bad, Isreal is bad. No matter what the facts, everything is spun into a way where one side is bad and the other is justified.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lanny, do facts even matter to you? Whenever anyone posts anything, the end result as far as you are concerned is that America is bad, Isreal is bad. No matter what the facts, everything is spun into a way where one side is bad and the other is justified.

Yes, facts do matter, which is why I continue to use them to hammer people with their own absurd logic. If you are to try and paint one regime as being evil for having a specific goal you must also look at the goals of the regimes you support. If the one you support has used similar tactics in recent memory, then you cannot use that as the basis for your argument as it is self defeating. Its the old "do as I say, not do as I do" argument, and that doesn't hold water. I continue to use the United States as the prime example as that is the point of reference for most people, and they are the ones proclaiming themselves as "world cop". A point of reference is extremely important in all of this. Without one, you get to live in a vaccuum, which is an impossibility when we discuss the human condition and geopolitics.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Then why are they resorting to military / terrorist / etc means and not diplomatic ones?

Because Israel will not acknowledge the representatives that the people have selected? When Israel acknowledges Hamas and Hizbollah as the people's represetntatives and openly negotiates with them then you're argument will have merit. Imagine what would have happened if the people of Quebec voted in the Bloc Quebecois and Ottawa refused to allow them into parliment or even acknowledge their existance? Think Quebec would have any hard feelings? Think Quebec may have won the last referundum? Now imagine what would have happened if Ottawa declared the Bloc a terrorist organization? Think things might have unfolded differently and we would have seen the rebirth of the FLQ?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Because Israel will not acknowledge the representatives that the people have selected? When Israel acknowledges Hamas and Hizbollah as the people's represetntatives and openly negotiates with them then you're argument will have merit. Imagine what would have happened if the people of Quebec voted in the Bloc Quebecois and Ottawa refused to allow them into parliment or even acknowledge their existance? Think Quebec would have any hard feelings? Think Quebec may have won the last referundum? Now imagine what would have happened if Ottawa declared the Bloc a terrorist organization? Think things might have unfolded differently and we would have seen the rebirth of the FLQ?

So Hezbollah and Hamas should be recognized regardless of the history or behavior of the group? I guess you're in agreement with Liberal Boris (whats his last name) who was widely criticized by everyone?

There's a reason why they haven't been recognized - their history and their refusal to abandon it. If they choose to totally abandon their militia tactics and history, there wouldn't be much of a reason to continue to ignore them after a significant length of time proving this abandonment. Until such time, there isn't much of a reason to recognize them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Because Israel will not acknowledge the representatives that the people have selected? When Israel acknowledges Hamas and Hizbollah as the people's represetntatives and openly negotiates with them then you're argument will have merit. Imagine what would have happened if the people of Quebec voted in the Bloc Quebecois and Ottawa refused to allow them into parliment or even acknowledge their existance? Think Quebec would have any hard feelings? Think Quebec may have won the last referundum? Now imagine what would have happened if Ottawa declared the Bloc a terrorist organization? Think things might have unfolded differently and we would have seen the rebirth of the FLQ?

When Hamas was elected in Palestine they were given every opportunity to recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist, but instead they choose to allow thier militant arm to continue its activities of launching rockets into Israel from Palestine territories and even kidnap a Israeli soldier.

Your being completely unfair in your argument. Israel out of the three parties involved has been the only one to actually negotiate in some semblance of good faith.

And the fundamental issue is that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah until they accept Israel's right to survive. Until that happens theres only one party at the table.

Add that to the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas have shown themselves to be unable to live up to any kind of agreement.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yes, some of us are definitely fooled here.

For example, some of us would be fooled into believing what this guy says in the above paragraph. Others aren't fooled because we saw with our own eyes coverage of destruction in Israel, stories about bomb shelters in Israel, body counts of innocents in Israel, photos of destruction in Israel, a daily count of exactly how many rockets were fired into Israel. So when this fellow says "they didn't cover it", he's fooling people, because I saw it in the mainstream media.

I find it odd that he specifically mentions that they didn't film the killers firing the rockets. Why doesn't he volunteer for that job? It sounds pretty dangerous.

I am sorry Rouge but you are taking his words and twisting them. Or at least the bit I provided.

He wasn't refering to their coverage in Israel. He was refering to their coverage in Lebanon when he said, "they didn't cover it." Where were the pictures of the missiles being fired? The unexceptable Hezbollah versions? You don't need to be beside them with today's technology.

Now certainly secracy played a part but then reporters were able to catch up with Israeli commandos on lamas inside Lebanon....why couldn't one reporter catch a barrage or 5 of missiles?

As for the daily count and damage coverage in Israel.....did you ever see the Israelis parade their dead in front of a camera like Mr. Green Helmet? You know bring the bodies back out of a ambulance for a better pose.

It wasn't like they were informing us that they had Hezbollah minders and therefore were unable to present anything that wasn't approved by Hezbollahs media relations. Upon pain of death.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I am sorry Rouge but you are taking his words and twisting them. Or at least the bit I provided.

He wasn't refering to their coverage in Israel. He was refering to their coverage in Lebanon when he said, "they didn't cover it." Where were the pictures of the missiles being fired? The unexceptable Hezbollah versions? You don't need to be beside them with today's technology.

Now certainly secracy played a part but then reporters were able to catch up with Israeli commandos on lamas inside Lebanon....why couldn't one reporter catch a barrage or 5 of missiles?

As for the daily count and damage coverage in Israel.....did you ever see the Israelis parade their dead in front of a camera like Mr. Green Helmet? You know bring the bodies back out of a ambulance for a better pose.

It wasn't like they were informing us that they had Hezbollah minders and therefore were unable to present anything that wasn't approved by Hezbollahs media relations. Upon pain of death.

Though hezbollah was certainly engaging in well orchestrated propaganda events, I think an easy answer is available as to why there wasn't more media attention on the lebanese side. It's much easier to report the news when you're not in any real danger. Because of the disproportionality of the Israeli air attack, being inside these urban areas was unsafe for journalists, while journalists 'embedded' in Israeli tank units inside northern Israel for example, were at considerably risk, and were to a point, 'safe'.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So Hezbollah and Hamas should be recognized regardless of the history or behavior of the group? I guess you're in agreement with Liberal Boris (whats his last name) who was widely criticized by everyone?

There's a reason why they haven't been recognized - their history and their refusal to abandon it. If they choose to totally abandon their militia tactics and history, there wouldn't be much of a reason to continue to ignore them after a significant length of time proving this abandonment. Until such time, there isn't much of a reason to recognize them.

The thing to remember about history is that it is constantly rewritten. Gerry Adams and Sein Fein were terrorists. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a leader of a terrorist or subversive organization. And has been mentioned here, many former Israeli leader and cabinet ministers were considered terrorists prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

You can't seem to acknowledge that Palestians, or Hezbollah for that matter, have any legitimate grievances. You just slap the terrorist label on them.

Of course I don't support their attacks on innocent civilans but I do consider that they have legitimate grievances with Israel or the IDF.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The thing to remember about history is that it is constantly rewritten. Gerry Adams and Sein Fein were terrorists. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a leader of a terrorist or subversive organization. And has been mentioned here, many former Israeli leader and cabinet ministers were considered terrorists prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

You can't seem to acknowledge that Palestians, or Hezbollah for that matter, have any legitimate grievances. You just slap the terrorist label on them.

Of course I don't support their attacks on innocent civilans but I do consider that they have legitimate grievances with Israel or the IDF.

I think to be treated legitimate you act legitimate.

Make a case to world bodies, request some sort of arbitration, hold peaceful rallies, list grievances and suggest meetings ...

these are the things that garner that legitimate tag and avoid tags like terrorist.

if you instead spew hatred, talk about the pushing a country's citizens into the ocean and funnel ammunition in from a country that spews similar hatred I think it only natural to be treated like a fringe group or a terrorist.

the best path back to an equitable settlement with Israel is to clean up their own act and put a good foot forward.