What should Israel do?

siochan wrote:

This opinion proves to me without doubt that someone somewhere is raising their children to have a one world view.

That being Israel = poor holocaust victims free homeland without pain and suffering which ultimately can do whatever it wants and blame the arabs on pushing them into it.

Ever think Israel is merely a racist state that has it's ideas pinned upon an expansionist policy that will see it own as much land as it can get it's hands on - especially land with water!

siochan wrote:

Firstly Dayan I wonder whether you took your screen name from that of Moshe Dayan? In my opinion he was an awful brutal racist man, the amount of times his words have not only made my body cringe but shake with anger are probably uncountable especially when he said things like
" We should tell the Palestinians we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads"


I tend to get into arguments on threads, so I thought I'd take the name of one of Israel's great generals. This doesn't mean I respect anything about the man other than his military accomplishments.


I begin my discussion with the detainment of one soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, on June 25th 2006. Shalit was detained by unidentified Palestinian militants (alot tend towards blaming Islamic Jihad) in response to the detaining of two Palestinian civilians, Osama Muamar and Mustafa Muamar, in Rafah in an overnight raid the previous night. This has mostly gone unreported and instead media sources worldwide tend to report the Israeli military line of stating Palestinians esculated an already tense situation by " kidnapping" a soldier.
In accordance with international law the taking of a soldier is not aquaided to that of taking civilians. The taking of soldiers is a regular event in times of war and provisions are set in international law to detail as to how they should be treated during their time of detainment. However international law frowns upon the " kidnapping " of civilians.


As Shiraz has already pointed out the story about these two civilians taken by Israel has not been verified and very possibly may not be true. As for Shalit's kidnapping being in response to an event the day before, it took at least two months to build the tunnel used to kidnap Shalit, so I really don't think that he was kidnapped in response to an event that occured the day before. Besides which, rockets were being fired non-stop from Gaza from almost the minute Israel withdrew a year ago yesterday.


Politically I understand the concept that a soverign nation's first priority is to protect its citizens, but assualting Gaza in such a way surely cannot be the best thing to do to protect your citizens as anyone with half a brain cell could see that inevitably there would be retaliation from those within Gaza who hold the Qassam rockets in their hands (Not one Israeli civilian was killed by these Qassam rockets fired from Gaza ).


First, Israelis have been killed by Qassams. Not many but there have been a few. Second, though they have not killed so many Israelis they have terrorized an entire town (Sderot) into a state of complete paralysis.


Operation Summer Rain continued and reigned down heavy. The IOF entered North and South Gaza and subsequently went about arresting members of the Palestinian Government democratically elected by the people. ( 64 Hamas officials to be exact) Human rights organisations including those within the UN called for a cessation of IOF activities stating that it was creating a vast humanitarian crisis. The operations in Gaza and eleswhere within the Occupied Territories continued leaving those on the most highly populated area in our planet without electricity and other essentials for daily life. It is estimated it will take as much as 18months to fully repair the damage doen by the IOF. This collective punishment is also against international law.


Why do you keep typing the IOF? If you mean Israeli Occupation Force then I really am starting to feel that we have nothing to talk about.


Next we have the detainment of two soldiers by the Hezbollah, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Eight soldiers lost their lives trying to further travel into Lebanon to retrieve the soldiers the same day as their "abduction".


Actually four soldiers dyed after they went into Lebanon to try and retrieve their comrades. The other soldiers killed were killed in the initial attack in which the two soldiers were killed.


This action was claimed by the Hezbollah and in similair circumstances to the taking if Shalit the Hezbollah demanded the release of three Lebanese political prisoners. ( there is a precedent for these behaviours as previously Israel have negoiated and released political prisoners both Lebanese and Palestinian)


The prisoners, as has already been stated elsewhere, recieved fair trials and were imprisoned for terrorist activity. They are not "political prisoners."


THe first Katyusha rockets where fired in retaliation for Israel's actions not beforehand. Israel then uses this to qualify to itself and the international community as the reasoning behind the unprovoked attack on Lebanon.
No where in this history of this world have we seen such an action because of the detainment of soldiers.


The first katyushas were fired as cover for the Hezbollah operatives who crossed the border to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil. Israel's attack was not unprovoked. They were responding to Hezbollah's attack on Israel. Furthermore, this is not the first such attack. As you noted Hezbollah has kidnapped Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory before, and has been firing on Israeli positions on Mt. Dov intermittently since Israel withdrew from Lebanon.


Had I the opportunity to have stood in Olmert's shoes the last thing I would have done is begin this war with Lebanon. It cannot be quantified as the best response to the taking of soldiers, instead it can only be seen as a fulfillment of an expansionist policy that sees Israel wishing to take and hold onto as much land as they wish to.


See my previous post to see why characterizing Israel as expansionist is simply wrong.


This expansionist policy has been identified by its actions in building the "aparthied wall" and its ever increasing theft of land. To get away from the expansionist policies of the Israeli government.


Aparthied does not apply here. Israel is not a minority oppressing a majority within the same country. The "fence" (it is only a wall in the Jerusalem area) is meant to save Israeli lives and has proven very effective at this. Furthermore the Israeli supreme court has made the government change the route of the fence multiple times when it deemed that the current route could not be justified solely on security concerns, which means that the court actively makes sure that the fence is not used as a means for conducting a land grab, but only as a tool for providing Israel with security.


Dayan you asked the question how should Israel fight Hezbollah my answer would be that they had no real reason to. Hezbollah where not a threat to Israel's existance as some would have us believe -


One quarter of Israel's population are as we speak now living in bomb shelters or have fled their homes. Just ask Shiraz. The economy of the north of Israel, leaving aside the country's economy as a whole, has been destroyed. Israel has been forced to massively call on their reserves, which means a huge additional drain on financial resources and the economy, as you have thousands of men being pulled from their daily lives to protect the country. This is an existential threat. A country simply can not exist like this in perpetuity.



However this has not been possible in the Middle East – World powers have fought wars and killed thousands in the name of bringing democracy to other areas of the world. I.e. Iraq. But what happens when the Palestinians democratically elect a Hamas government? Exactly what the US and Israel stated they would do …. Punish them.


No, they treated the Palestinians like responsible adults and held them accountable for who they elected to lead them.


For those who will put my opinions down to nothing but anti Semitism (as it’s easier to label than to understand) I have absolutely no issue in declaring my anti Zionism. This not mean I hate Israel rather that I would stand against any racist ideology set upon the destruction of others – just as I would consider myself anti Nazi or anti racist…. Etc.


Zionism is not a racist idealogy. It is the movement for Jewish self-determination. It has nothing to say about anything but the Jewish desire to control our own fate. If you believe in the right of peoples to determine their own fates but deny us our this right to self-determination then I'm not sure you aren't an anti-semite, and I do not say that lightly. Now, I've broken my own rule on this thread and written something angry and provocative, but this was simply too much for me. I asked for a constructive discussion of Israel's situation, not an indictment of every Israeli action and a list of apologetics for everything done against Israel. Honestly, if you are incapable of not talking about Israel as a "racist state" "aparthied state" "blood thirsty state" or any of the other derogatory drivel that is routinely spewed by demagogues all over the internet then please stay away from this thread.