time for israel to be bombed to the stone age?

rebornFixer

Open wrote:

You're actually comparing this to the NAZI's??? Sadly, there are race issues involved in everything; but to compare this to the nazi's is a joke and a desperate reach....in my opinion.

How so? And I am not comparing anything, really. Well, that's not true. My point was, people on both sides of this debate have their stock cards they play. Hardcore Israel supporters and their opponents on the other extreme both evoke history as a justification for current actions on the part of both Israel and Hizbollah/other terrorist groups. At one point does one leave history in the past and move forward by changing behavior in the present? You yourself brought up occupation. What occupation? Lebanon is only occupied now because Hizbollah decided to start some shit. How long is history going to serve as an excuse or rationale for terrorism perpetuated by both sides?

Open

reborncareerist wrote:

How so? And I am not comparing anything, really. Well, that's not true. My point was, people on both sides of this debate have their stock cards they play. Hardcore Israel supporters and their opponents on the other extreme both evoke history as a justification for current actions on the part of both Israel and Hizbollah/other terrorist groups. At one point does one leave history in the past and move forward by changing behavior in the present? You yourself brought up occupation. What occupation? Lebanon is only occupied now because Hizbollah decided to start some shit. How long is history going to serve as an excuse or rationale for terrorism perpetuated by both sides?

The occupation i was talking about was Israel itself...that's what this is all about, not race. The Nazi's were about genocide, that's not the case here it's about the occupation of a piece of land....to use Nazis as an example is a disgrace to all the people that were killed by the Nazis.

rebornFixer

Open wrote:

The occupation i was talking about was Israel itself...that's what this is all about, not race. The Nazi's were about genocide, that's not the case here it's about the occupation of a piece of land....to use Nazis as an example is a disgrace to all the people that were killed by the Nazis.

But this is exactly what I am talking about ... How is this focus on history going to be helpful today? I know the occupation is not history, it is current. But the original event happened in the past and the result of this event (Israel) is not going anywhere. People are going to have to live with it, and they can do so in ways that don't involve bloodshed and bigotry. Why shouldn't Israel be there? I am in North America, which isn't my so-called "racial homeland". Arabs have spread into parts of Africa that were previously held by natives.
I think the real problem is in how Israelis relate to other people in the Middle East ... The problem should no longer be the existence of the country itself.

Open

reborncareerist wrote:

But this is exactly what I am talking about ... How is this focus on history going to be helpful today? I know the occupation is not history, it is current. But the original event happened in the past and the result of this event (Israel) is not going anywhere. People are going to have to live with it, and they can do so in ways that don't involve bloodshed and bigotry. Why shouldn't Israel be there? I am in North America, which isn't my so-called "racial homeland". Arabs have spread into parts of Africa that were previously held by natives.
I think the real problem is in how Israelis relate to other people in the Middle East ... The problem should no longer be the existence of the country itself.

I agree with you Isreal does have a right to exist...that's not what our discussion is about...Ilana brought the Nazi's into this and I dont believe there is a comparison. The reason it's gone on this far is due to the endless cycle of killing on both sides that is going on as we speak. My greatest concern with what's going on is that Isreal is killing 90 civilians to kill 1 terrorist..that in itself is terrorisim.

rebornFixer

Open wrote:

I agree with you Isreal does have a right to exist...that's not what our discussion is about...Ilana brought the Nazi's into this and I dont believe there is a comparison. The reason it's gone on this far is due to the endless cycle of killing on both sides that is going on as we speak. My greatest concern with what's going on is that Isreal is killing 90 civilians to kill 1 terrorist..that in itself is terrorisim.

Well, maybe we are more in agreement than I originally thought.

Open

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, maybe we are more in agreement than I originally thought.

Cheers to that... peace

ilana

darkcrow wrote:

i dont think palastinian politicians are advocated or are even planning another holocost, they just want their own state where they can feel safe in and not be at risk of israeli indiscriminate fire on innocents on the beach.

if everyone had your attitude then the IRA would not be disarming and entering the political arena.

that is bullshit
they had the opertunity to have there own sstate time and again, with the peal comission, the partition plan, and in 2000 in camp david, but as usual the arabs that call themselves palastinions, never miss an opotunity to miss an oppotunity
you think they are not planing another holocaust , check thire charter, look at thire actions, and listen to thire speaches.
if every one had your atitude, then we would all be ignoring historical fact.

ilana

Open wrote:

Pulling out the Nazi card, can you get any lower? Pathetic...just like what's happening in Beirut.

just pointing out the facts, that should not bother you now should it

dayan

Open wrote:

The occupation i was talking about was Israel itself...that's what this is all about, not race. The Nazi's were about genocide, that's not the case here it's about the occupation of a piece of land....to use Nazis as an example is a disgrace to all the people that were killed by the Nazis.

Actually I think it's quite appropriate. Hamas and Hezbullah and Iran are all about genocide. And guess who they'd like to kill. The Jews. That's strange, isn't that who the Nazis were after also? Like I said, quite appropriate.

dayan

Open wrote:

I agree with you Isreal does have a right to exist...that's not what our discussion is about...Ilana brought the Nazi's into this and I dont believe there is a comparison. The reason it's gone on this far is due to the endless cycle of killing on both sides that is going on as we speak. My greatest concern with what's going on is that Isreal is killing 90 civilians to kill 1 terrorist..that in itself is terrorisim.

497 Lebanese civilians and about 400 Hezbullah terrorists have been killed since the fighting started. How exactly does that come out to 90 civilians for every 1 terrorist killed?

darkcrow

dayan wrote:

Actually I think it's quite appropriate. Hamas and Hezbullah and Iran are all about genocide. And guess who they'd like to kill. The Jews. That's strange, isn't that who the Nazis were after also? Like I said, quite appropriate.

hamas, now they are in political power, are more interested in a 2 state solution. they know thats the only viable option. iran... actually before the new president came in there was a strong movement for democratic change. dont think iran wants a genoncide just becuase a crazy president says a load of shit. he actually has very little power. he is just a mouth piece. hezbullah are more interested in securing lebenons borders than anything else.

rebornFixer

darkcrow wrote:

hamas, now they are in political power, are more interested in a 2 state solution. they know thats the only viable option. iran... actually before the new president came in there was a strong movement for democratic change. dont think iran wants a genoncide just becuase a crazy president says a load of shit. he actually has very little power. he is just a mouth piece. hezbullah are more interested in securing lebenons borders than anything else.

I don't know ... I don't think Iran is harmless, particularly. They are jointly responsible for Hizbollah's lethality.

dayan

darkcrow wrote:

hamas, now they are in political power, are more interested in a 2 state solution. they know thats the only viable option. iran... actually before the new president came in there was a strong movement for democratic change. dont think iran wants a genoncide just becuase a crazy president says a load of shit. he actually has very little power. he is just a mouth piece. hezbullah are more interested in securing lebenons borders than anything else.

I had a feeling you'd say something like that. Go look at Hamas's charter. They haven't changed it since they got into the government, and they still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. If they were really interested in a two state solution they would have made something productive out of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza and shown that the Palestinians are capable of building a viable and peaceful state. That would of encouraged Israel to go forward with its plan to pull out of most of the West Bank. They also would have recognized Israel. A two state solution involves two states after all. Instead they refuse to discuss recognition of Israel and have spent their time lobbing rockets at Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. If Hezbullah were interested in securing Lebanon's borders then why did they provoke Israel knowing that it would invite a massive retaliation? Your reasoning simply doesn't make sense.

darkcrow

dayan wrote:

I had a feeling you'd say something like that. Go look at Hamas's charter. They haven't changed it since they got into the government, and they still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. If they were really interested in a two state solution they would have made something productive out of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza and shown that the Palestinians are capable of building a viable and peaceful state. That would of encouraged Israel to go forward with its plan to pull out of most of the West Bank. They also would have recognized Israel. A two state solution involves two states after all. Instead they refuse to discuss recognition of Israel and have spent their time lobbing rockets at Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. If Hezbullah were interested in securing Lebanon's borders then why did they provoke Israel knowing that it would invite a massive retaliation? Your reasoning simply doesn't make sense.

its a two way street. as soon as hamas was elected the west and israel broke off all relaetions. the usa wanted democracy and when they didnt like the results they bitch. before innocent children were murdered on the beach by israeli fire hamas were in negotiations to recognise israel. hamas were more interested in getting rid of the corrupt system that the PLO had resided over, and actually help the palastinians. but of course israel doesnt want that and has so far held back all taxes so that real progress cannot be made. they also go for a massive land grab and build an illegal wall on palastinian land.

Ahnimus

Racism
November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379[1], which states as its conclusion:
Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

The resolution also endorsed an August 1975 statement by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries (Lima, Peru), that: ...severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology.[2]

The Wall
Israel's goal in building the wall appears threefold; one, confiscation of land and water for future expansion of the West Bank colonisation, two, unilaterally redraw geopolitical borders, and three, encourage the exodus of Palestinians by denying them the ability to earn a living from their land.[3]

Israel continues to deny the Palestinian people adequate water resources and restrict their movements to to such an extent as to make living in their village an unviable option.

The World Court in the Hague in July 2004 announced it's verdict that the wall is illegal and must go. A victory for the Palestinians, but the decision will most likely be ignored by Israel.[4]


References
1. UN Resolution 3379
2. A list of UN security counsel resolutions against Israel.
3. Israel and Palestine, 2003 and beyond
4. Israel's Wall Condemned by the International Court of Justice

dayan

darkcrow wrote:

its a two way street. as soon as hamas was elected the west and israel broke off all relaetions. the usa wanted democracy and when they didnt like the results they bitch. before innocent children were murdered on the beach by israeli fire hamas were in negotiations to recognise israel. hamas were more interested in getting rid of the corrupt system that the PLO had resided over, and actually help the palastinians. but of course israel doesnt want that and has so far held back all taxes so that real progress cannot be made. they also go for a massive land grab and build an illegal wall on palastinian land.

whoa there...being democratically elected doesn't equal everybody has to treat you a certain way. Israel and the USA have recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization, and for good reason. They are holding the Palestinians responsible for the decisions they have made. It is not that the US and Israel don't recognize that Hamas was democratically elected. They do recognize this. They have chosen to treat the Hamas government a certain way based on the policies that Hamas espouses. The deaths on the beach are contested, and it is not at all clear who is responsible for the explosions there (full disclosure I'm convinced it wasn't an Israeli shell). I don't know why you say that Hamas was in negotiations to recognize Israel. They have explicitly refused to do just that. The fence is a whole other issue. Suffice it to say it is not illegal, and it is not Palestinian land. It is contested land. That is the whole point of this conflict.

dayan

Ahnimus wrote:

Racism
November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379[1], which states as its conclusion:
Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

The resolution also endorsed an August 1975 statement by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries (Lima, Peru), that: ...severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology.[2]

The Wall
Israel's goal in building the wall appears threefold; one, confiscation of land and water for future expansion of the West Bank colonisation, two, unilaterally redraw geopolitical borders, and three, encourage the exodus of Palestinians by denying them the ability to earn a living from their land.[3]

Israel continues to deny the Palestinian people adequate water resources and restrict their movements to to such an extent as to make living in their village an unviable option.

The World Court in the Hague in July 2004 announced it's verdict that the wall is illegal and must go. A victory for the Palestinians, but the decision will most likely be ignored by Israel.[4]


References
1. UN Resolution 3379
2. A list of UN security counsel resolutions against Israel.
3. Israel and Palestine, 2003 and beyond
4. Israel's Wall Condemned by the International Court of Justice

The resolution labeling Zionism as racism is one of the greatest abominations to ever come out of the UN. It is the repudiation, based on a double standard, of a nation's right to self-determination. Note also the Cold War nature of the resolution. It was adopted because of the power of the Soviet bloc and the Arab bloc. This is clear from looking at the list of those that voted in favor. Note that virtually every Western country, where the problems of racism and bigotry are actually taken seriously, or are at least acknowledged, voted against.

With regards to the fence (it is actually only a wall in a very small portion of its total length) the Israeli supreme court has mandated that the route of the fence be based solely on security needs. Where they have deemed that the route reflected political and not security concerns they have forced the government to alter the route. The supreme court also attempts to weigh Israel's security needs as against Palestinian rights and have ruled multiple times in the Palestinian's favor. I know this because these decisions have been published, and I had a conversation not more than five hours ago on this topic with a former Israeli supreme court justice. As regards the Hague decision: the decision never once mentioned terrorism and Israel's security needs which are the very reasons for the fence's construction. It therefore seems that the decision was unfair. The Israeli supreme court offered its own decision, upon which its subsequent rulings have been based, which stated that the fence was legal with regards to international law so long as its route was determined by security needs alone. Hence the courts rulings forcing alterations in the route.

shiraz

darkcrow wrote:

its a two way street. as soon as hamas was elected the west and israel broke off all relaetions. the usa wanted democracy and when they didnt like the results they bitch. before innocent children were murdered on the beach by israeli fire hamas were in negotiations to recognise israel. hamas were more interested in getting rid of the corrupt system that the PLO had resided over, and actually help the palastinians. but of course israel doesnt want that and has so far held back all taxes so that real progress cannot be made. they also go for a massive land grab and build an illegal wall on palastinian land.

1. Hamas is a terror organization.

2. It used an old system many terror groups had used before - win the public trust by providing them social services & support in order to get to the parlament.

3. Once they got where they wanted, they stoped helping their civilians. Instead, they prefered smuggling weapons & buying weapons.

4. The Israeli govt and the rest of the world paniced when Hamas, a terror organization who doesn't believe in Israel's right to exsit won the elections, so naturally they stoped giving money to the PLO.

5. Palestinians went into some humanitarian crisis, Hamas reacted by smuggling weapons & money for buying weapons.The next step was to fire at Israeli town of Sderot and ruin every chance they had for Israel to take them seriously and continue with the rest of the withdrawals.

6. For dessert, Hamas planed and executed the killing & kidnapping of Israeli soliders within an Israeli territory, which is a supervision point called Kerem Shalom & part of an agreement between Israel & the PLO.

7. Israel had to return to Gaza.

Yep, Hamas really cares about his civilians interests. Right.

The only mistake we had is to panic and not wanting to finance and talk to a terror organization who believes Israel should be wiped off the map. One can expect us to behave that way in the beginning, don't you think? Well, Hamas didn't, that's why they also never really tried to negotiate with us.

Oh and - its not a wall, its a 95% fence, 5% concrete. We had to build it in order to reduce the number of suicide bombers getthing into Israel. It worked.

Ahnimus

dayan wrote:

The resolution labeling Zionism as racism is one of the greatest abominations to ever come out of the UN. It is the repudiation, based on a double standard, of a nation's right to self-determination. Note also the Cold War nature of the resolution. It was adopted because of the power of the Soviet bloc and the Arab bloc. This is clear from looking at the list of those that voted in favor. Note that virtually every Western country, where the problems of racism and bigotry are actually taken seriously, or are at least acknowledged, voted against.

With regards to the fence (it is actually only a wall in a very small portion of its total length) the Israeli supreme court has mandated that the route of the fence be based solely on security needs. Where they have deemed that the route reflected political and not security concerns they have forced the government to alter the route. The supreme court also attempts to weigh Israel's security needs as against Palestinian rights and have ruled multiple times in the Palestinian's favor. I know this because these decisions have been published, and I had a conversation not more than five hours ago on this topic with a former Israeli supreme court justice. As regards the Hague decision: the decision never once mentioned terrorism and Israel's security needs which are the very reasons for the fence's construction. It therefore seems that the decision was unfair. The Israeli supreme court offered its own decision, upon which its subsequent rulings have been based, which stated that the fence was legal with regards to international law so long as its route was determined by security needs alone. Hence the courts rulings forcing alterations in the route.

Wouldn't a wall on Israeli land be just as secure?

Ahnimus

shiraz wrote:

1. Hamas is a terror organization.

2. It used an old system many terror groups had used before - win the public trust by providing them social services & support in order to get to the parlament.

3. Once they got where they wanted, they stoped helping their civilians. Instead, they prefered smuggling weapons & buying weapons.

4. The Israeli govt and the rest of the world paniced when Hamas, a terror organization who doesn't believe in Israel's right to exsit won the elections, so naturally they stoped giving money to the PLO.

5. Palestinians went into some humanitarian crisis, Hamas reacted by smuggling weapons & money for buying weapons.The next step was to fire at Israeli town of Sderot and ruin every chance they had for Israel to take them seriously and continue with the rest of the withdrawals.

6. For dessert, Hamas planed and executed the killing & kidnapping of Israeli soliders within an Israeli territory, which is a supervision point called Kerem Shalom & part of an agreement between Israel & the PLO.

7. Israel had to return to Gaza.

Yep, Hamas really cares about his civilians interests. Right.

The only mistake we had is to panic and not wanting to finance and talk to a terror organization who believes Israel should be wiped off the map. One can expect us to behave that way in the beginning, don't you think? Well, Hamas didn't, that's why they also never really tried to negotiate with us.

Oh and - its not a wall, its a 95% fence, 5% concrete. We had to build it in order to reduce the number of suicide bombers getthing into Israel. It worked.

This has been going on for half a century. When is Israel going to realize retaliation doesn't fix anything. It's too bad the Jews didn't recognize Christ as the messiah, he had some good things to teach about making peace.