Denzel, seriously, are you still going off on those ridiculously antagonizing anti-US statements? We spend tens of thousands of dollars on each bomb we drop to make sure it will drop precisely where we want it to so that we -don't- kill civilians. We could spend a little over $250 per bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb) but we don't.

STFU, please.

I apologize in advance for not liking political incorrectness, but we seem to have a lot of that these days.

obiwan: You refer to a lot of countries as if their whole nation is behind them, such as England, as if anyone could really say today what they were thinking over half a century ago. That would take some serious historical research. Maybe you were joking eh?

You mention that there are more than enough Muslim countries, so that it is only right the Jews should have their own. I agree, except you say that as if the Palestinians can just move from their homes. I believe you're thinking too much in terms of who has more countries and living space. I think its more important to think more in terms of what the people deserve. The people should not suffer the consequences of the actions of an organization or government.

The example with Mexico attacking the US is a good example and we have done similar actions in the past. Maybe even Obama would support that kind of action, but that doesn't make it right. You say that "then I am truly sorry for civilian deaths, but perhaps they shoudn't have started the war." If you're saying civilians started it and the same or related civilians were killed by the retaliating country, I can understand. But if you're saying a govt or civilians started it and uninvolved civilians were killed, what is right about that. I may be idealistic, but I don't believe that any person of any country should be favored over another. Why does everything have to be solved with force? I'm not completely against war though.

And I believe neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis should be kicked out; they both have a right to stay in what they consider their home. It would only make the situation worse to force one group to leave.

I was thinking about the argument about the Jews right to Israel because of their past there. I was going to argue against it, and then I remembered the history of it, (tell me if I'm wrong here) that the Zionist movement was a peaceful migration of people over the course of half a century from even the late 19th century. The Balfour Declaration set aside boundaries, but the plan kept changing until after WWII. The UN partition was the final plan when Israel defended itself from Arab invasion. So really I'd have to agree that it was the British who were at fault. I believe that Jews should have migrated to Palestine but not to create their own nation. That is what started a part of Arab resentment.

So is Israel a legitimate nation? I don't think winning wars or whether they lived there in the past has much to do with it. They live there now, and that is legitimate. Whether or not they deserved it in the past is another question.

Otherwise I agree with you on just about every point.

woooo: Hamas is not "an organization that relys solely on bombing civilians." It gains a lot of its popularity by providing social welfare programs and education. They're not the only terrorist group that does that.

I won't be able to reply to replies for another few days unfortunately.

This whole "whose home it was in the past thing" is not a good argument. Just because it used to be the jews doesn't mean it should be now, but in the same light, just cause it used to be the palestinians doesnt mean it should be theres now.

And Hamas's uses only violence in there attempts to get what they want.

Now I think we need to make a distinction here- Hamas is made of Palestinians, true, but not ALL of them.

I don't have a problem, nor do I wish the destruction of, innocent, non-Hamas Palestinians.

Just like if this were 1939, I wouldn't want the death of
non-Nazi Germans (however few and far between they might've been.)

But in all honesty, this is WAR, to all of you anti-Israel folks.

"Excessive?" When we wer breaking into Germany in WWII, the Allies, English and US alike- did we worry about "excessive" attacks?

NO. In war, you beat the tar out of the enemy badly enough so that they are crushed, so that they are so badly hurt they are destroyed or might as well be.

You fight a war so that you win it so decisively so that the other side cannot attack you again.

What happens when you do NOT finish off the enmy, when you leave loose ends? See: World War I.

To all Englishmen condemning Israel here (and the US, it would seem) how many did you lose in WWI? And then how many did you lose in WWII because you, we as Allies didn't finish things decisively enough by breaking through and crushing Germany?

As to who's land it is- it isn't a relgious question. Whether the land was "promised to us" or not by God, the Jews WERE there first, DID settle the land as theirs before losing it to the Romans and being scattered everywhere (I'm Jewish, so of course I do believe that it was promised to us, but even if you choose to believe it wasn't, historically, we WERE there first, it IS Israeli land.)

Finally, in response to urallLESBIANS:

First, fair point stating that just because you're English, American, etc. doesn't mean you agree with the administration (You all know I'm a liberal, I hate Bush) and that country's tances change. Still, I am talking about the official, leader positions here when I refer to a country, which more often than not reflect the views of the leader since in the West especially the leader is elected.

The Palestinians: again, innocent ones, let's not hurt them, but it is ISRAEL's land, and the world isn't always fair (hate to play the religion/race card here, but fate was certainly not always fair to the Jews and Blacks for 2,000 years- doesn't make it right, just saying that this is the real world, not heaven, and so as much as you should be able to, you can't always get what you want or maybe even deserve, so if Israelies and Palestinians can't co-exist, then sorry to the innocent Palestinains, but yes: I'd say find another Islamic country, sorry about your home, ask for UN or EUROPEAN support, which is what I've been advocating all along.)

And I must forcibly disagree- both groups, it'd be nice if they could stay, but when you claim "neither group should have to leave"- again, sorry, not always fair, Israel and her founders foguht to get this land back for 2,000 years, however trite that sounds, and they would rather die than leave; the Israelis can easily blow away the Palestinians, innocent or not, so if both groups can't get along, it really WOULD BE for the best if one group left, the Palestinians: because unless Iran nukes them all in which case the Palestinains are dead too and we're talking WWIII, Israel's not going anywhere, and if the Palestinians keep this up, over the decades they WILL kill themselves off, and I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY GENOCIDES OF ANY RACES, ISRAELI, PALESTINIAN, ARABIC-MUSLIM, JEW- YOU NAME IT, ALL RACES HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIVE IN PEACE.

On the Balfour Declaration- mostly correct, the only flaw- Zionism supported the creation of a Jewish state, not just immigration to the land, and the Declaration, at least by the end, DID allow for the creation of Jewish State AND a Palestine- the English just couldn't find a boundary formula that would work (in my opinion, and tell me, folks, if I'm wrong, because NO SETTLEMENT WILL WORK- IT IS SAD, BUT IT REALLY IS ONE OR THE OTHER.)

As to Hamas- Welfare: HA! Just because an organization has a few good points doesn't stop it from being a destructive or terrorist organization built on death and destruction; hate to use a cliche, but the Nazis and Soviet Union had "youth" and "public welfare" programs, too.

So to sum up my long postion:

-I am 100% behind Israel,
-hoping the US will come to it's senses
-hoping England will take responsiblity for what is in large part their fault and help find a peaceful solution if there is one
-hoping Europe, Germany and France in particular, can influence the UN to create a peace-keeping force in the region OR stop condemning Israel while offering no constructive advice or help to anyone
-I 100% condemn Hamas
-I do not advocate the killing of innocent, non-Hamas Palestinans, but also do not believe that they can or should have Israel as their state of Palestine
-I believe 100% that the land is Israel's and that Palestinians must either come in peacefully, or go to another country, for staying and fighting like this is only bloody and tragic for both sides and will inevitably end in the sad destruction of the Palestinian people, and if Iran gets involved, possibly Israel too (but I thhink Israel can and should take on Iran if provoked, but that's another conversation altogether.)

And now for a bit of sleep, see you all in a few hours- Shalom!

:)

"I believe 100% that the land is Israel's and that Palestinians must either come in peacefully, or go to another country..."

So, effectively, you think that ethnic cleansing would "solve" the problem, right?

"We spend tens of thousands of dollars on each bomb we drop to make sure it will drop precisely where we want it to so that we -don't- kill civilians."

I'm sure that every civilian casualty all over the world in the few last decades very much appreciates this.

BTW, my opinion is that precision-weapons are used to minimize risk of repetitious attacks on specific targets and therefore to minimize risks for the aircraft crews. If there was REAL concern for the civilian victims, there would be no bombing at all.

I congratulate all of you so far on a pretty respectful dialoague of an issue that inspires disrespect in most cases. Well done.

There is no real difference between "Terrorism" and "War". People die. In war, everyone uses the weapons they can put their hands upon. Stones, slings, spears, assault rifles, Merkava Mark3 tanks, laser-guided missiles, home-made grenades, suicide bombers, hijacked passenger planes, or nukes.

There are only 2 ways of ending any war:
1) Utterly defeating the enemy - not possible with Palestinians, obviously, nor with Israelis, obviously
2) Negotiating - also hard, since both sides are particularly stubborn and hurt by 60 years of conflict, but not impossible

I guess they will try 1) until it happens, or they become so tired of it to finally try 2) seriously.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"

Don't the illegal settlements in the west bank mean that the Israeli Jews have broken their end of the 'bargain'? "It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

If Israel deserves the support of western democracies perhaps it should live up to the ideals it was created under. Allowing Jewish settlers to steal already occupied Palestinian land in clear defiance of the law is persecution. Persecution by ethnicity in fact. It seems the western democracies may be allowing a second holocaust while trying to prevent a second holocaust...

Also, in regards to the Gaza bombing. Last I checked police stations, Universities and government offices are infrastructure rather than military targets. I haven't heard of any specific paramilitary targets being attacked. This was a retaliatory massacre rather than a military operation.

My political beliefs in relation to Israel are that both Palestinians and Israelis should have the right to live freely in Israel. Ideally free from missile-strikes, mass bombings, assassinations and ethnic persecution. I also believe that the Israeli governments persecutory actions made the arrival of a Hamas-like organization inevitable. While at the same time Palestinian terrorists forced the Israeli government to be more tyrranical. Its ultimately a cycle of ethnically fueled hatred.

I do reject the barbaric and illogical justification from zionists that they deserve to take a territory because their ancestors lived their 1500+ years ago though. Its a ridiculous assertion and the implications od that being a valid reason to steal somebody elses property is even more ridiculous. Israel is just as much Palestinian as it is Israeli. (well, mabe 60-40 in favour of Israel with that being ther population dynamic)

I do believe that Israeli citizens have the right to defend themselves, but that reaction should be both proportional and restrained. Killing 500+ people in response to the killing of 9 doesn't help anybody. The people of Gaza are going to see that as more persecution and be pushed further and further towards desperate options. Like terrorist organizations...

Also - Israel was pushed to a stalemate by Lebanon 2 years ago. Considering that the population of Iran is about 15x that of Lebanon Israel would stand no chance without unpopular outside support. If Israel ends up fighting another Arab coalition I doubt it'd be able to survive.

It's hard to effectively compare this war to WWI or II. Those wars were in a different time period against a different enemy. As this conflict and the Iraq war have proved, more killing only causes more resistance. This is a different war also. You are saying that the Palestinians are the ones that should stop fighting, when they are the ones losing more people. Granted there are many millions more Muslims, but that that isn't the issue.

As you say the Israelis settled the land first. That brings us back to the point made about France and the Celts. Should every group of people have the right to go back to their homeland and displace the current residents.

When I mentioned how Hamas provides welfare programs, I wasn't saying that makes them ok, I was explaining that they aren't only what they are made out to be in the media.

Happy New year all, be back soon.

A few things.

If San Diego was being attacked by missiles launched by the Mexican government from Tijuana, America would invade with guns blazing, without a care to proportionality. France would invade Belgium if missiles were being launched from there.

The Palestinian people in Gaza elected a government that rejects Israels right to exist, that campaigned on the promise to fight Israel, knowing full well Hamas would launch rockets into Israel. The idea of 'innocent civilians' (at least those of voting age) is kind of skewed by this, at least in my mind. The Palestinian people support the rocket attacks.

The disputed territory is just that, disputed, not occupied. I would agree that settlements in the Golan and in the Sinai in the 70s are illegal. Those in the West Bank are not illegal. Britain washed its hands of the territory, so any reference to requirements of Israel under the Balfour Declaration are moot. The partition that was offered in 47/48 was rejected by the Arabs. So the land that the Arabs rejected in the West Bank is now in dispute, since the terms of the partition were rejected and never implemented. It is not Palestinian. There is a very large difference between occupied Golan and occupied Judea and Sumeria. The Golan is sovereign Syrian territory. The West Bank was not sovereign territory. It was 'occupied' by the British, by the Ottomans, by the... by the.... After 48, it was 'occupied' by the Jordanians and no one protested.

As for what happens now, I have no idea. Whether or not the Palestinians are 'entitled' to a state, I think it is in Israels best interest to give them one. There should be no retreat to pre-67 borders, as there is no legal justification for that. The borders from 48 to 67 were not internationally recognized sovereign borders. They were armistice lines, nothing more. They were where the armies stopped when the armistice was declared.

However, if today, Israel withdrew from 100% of the West Bank and gave the Palestinians sovereignty over East Jerusalem, let the Palestinians control their borders like any other country does, do you think there would be peace? I do not. Whether you like Israel or not, no country would give away territory under those conditions.

Let me clarify one point. Settlements are not illegal merely because they exist. It would be illegal if they evicted Palestanians to build them. Some were built in empty areas, others sadly were not.

I do agree that Israel has the "right" to hold the territories they are strong enough to hold. It is the right of the mightier. The weaker also have the right to fight them, with whatever means necessary, Both sides have a right to count upon, and to call upon their allies, whoever they are.. If things escalate enough, we get to call it "World War". I just hope my country won't participate in the next one, although it won't matter at all if it gets nuclear.

In the meantime, whoever shoots anything at anyone, is a bloody murderer, and no amount of "self-defense" crap excuse is going to change that fact.

Their are enough settlements that evicted Palestinians in order to be built to consider it persecution. I think the majority of those in the west bank in fact included eviction or at least the seizure of somebody elses property. The UN declared them illegal and the colonists still fall back to the zionist fallacy.

IMO Israel shouldn't be bombing Gaza in the first place. I can understand an invasion with the intent of removing paramilitary capabilities but isn't Israeli bombing just as bad as Hamas bombing? Doesn't the fact that Israel is intentionally killing Gazans make the Israeli government an inverse terrorist organization?

Also, as far as I know the overwhelming majority of people in the Gaza strip and the West bank didn't want to become part of Israel and were 'content' with being part of their pre-67 muslim governments. I also believe that if the West bank and the Gaza strip were 'freed' - so to speak - from Israel there would be less recruiting power for terrorist organiztions.

IMO the pre-67 borders are the neccessary concession to make peace possible. I know Israel isn't really willing to move beyond the military-complex in regards to territory but its the only way for peace in the region. Perhaps in a few more decades...

'67 war was started by Israel, not by Arabs... Yes, they were preparing for war, and it was a pre-emptive strike, and most successful, but still, it WAS started by Israel.

UN is a joke.

You should find the "Yes, Prime Minister" jokes about British involvement in the EU, Denzel. Try youtube.

Also, the UN is an international forum and includes an international court. It may not be able to solve most of the worlds problems but it has some authority to deal with them. Would you rather Charles Taylor or the former-yugoslavian nationalists be tried and released in their home countries? It may not have the power you'd think an international organization of its scale would have but it does serve as an international forum and has passed through multiple development-related resolutions.

Also, why does it matter who started the war in '67?

Found the vid I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUOkGxGUVs&feature=related

For the '67, I was simply agreeing with your point, that Israel brought responsibility for Gaza on themselves.

UN works fine when there's need to put pressure on the small players, although it is unforgivably slow and impotent at actually preventing violence.
It is a joke when it comes to policing 5 mayor powers and Israel. I don't even see the point of discussing any kind of resolution asking any of them to do anything.

Yeah, the UN is a joke when it comes to solving conflicts like this. Its why we still need organizations like NATO and other military alliances. I still think its fair to have international lawyers defining things like persecution though.

True UN court would be fine, if only US would allow their citizens to be persecuted at it, too
NATO is fine in the idea of a defensive alliance, and it is rather efficient militarily speaking, but there's no legal justification for use of NATO forces when the conflict has nothing to do with any member state (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan, for example).
I'm not saying that bombing serbian tanks around Sarajevo wasn't a right thing to do, it was just illegal for NATO forces. But who is going to say that? Russia?
UN was created with the ideal of making any war illegal, IIRC.

Sent from: Denzel73 (66 ) Sent: 02:19 AM
"We spend tens of thousands of dollars on each bomb we drop to make sure it will drop precisely where we want it to so that we -don't- kill civilians."

I'm sure that every civilian casualty all over the world in the few last decades very much appreciates this.

I specifically staed I did NOT WANT A GENOCIDE, but if the Israelis keep bombing the tar out of Gaza to try and crush Hamas (which I AM all in favor for) and the Palestinians don't find a way to either leave the area or come to terms with Israelis and the two find a way to co-exist, then the Palestinians WILL die.

Not saying it's what I'd like or even necessarily what's right, but if it becomes a one-or-the-other showdown and the Israelis have bombs, Hamas has rockets, and the non-Hamas Palestinians have rocks- who do YOU think is going to go?

I think archoinix has some very good points: if the Palestinians "have" Hamas, and Hamas fires rockets into Israel endangering their civilians, then naturally Israel is going to act more brutally and potentially colder towards the Palestinians, in a vicious cycle. And the UN IS a joke here- and it the chief problem I have with such countries as, once again, Germany and France, who hold so much sway at the UN. They do NOTHING to help in these situations because they are afraid to rock the boat and/or cannot muster global support; all the UN does, in essence, is shake it's finger, call both sides barbaric, maybe place a slap-on-the-wrist sanction on a party, and move on.

I ask you all- if two ten year olds got into a huge fight and were giving each other bloody noses, wouldn't you say it's tjhe duty of an adult, be it a parent, teacher, or even a passerby, to try and break the fight up?

So I ask you not to condemn Israel or Palestinian militants if you are not willing to do what I wish had been done by now- break up the fight.

(And in response to another query, I'm not comparing these conflicts to WWI and II, I'm comparing the non-decisive nature of victory in both WWI and these Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, and I postulate that just as non-decisivenes led to WWII from the non-conclusive WWI, more of these Israli-Palestinian conflicts arise from non-conclusive past conflicts.)

"I ask you all- if two ten year olds got into a huge fight and were giving each other bloody noses, wouldn't you say it's the duty of an adult, be it a parent, teacher, or even a passerby, to try and break the fight up?"

I agree. How do you stand between a 10-year old armed with stones, and a 21-year old knight in a shining armor, armed with two-handed sword and some holly righteousness? The Israel resembles the latter one, IMHO.

Those 2 10 year olds aren't quite right Denzel. More accurate is one has a bow and arrow, the other has a machine gun. While the machine gun is certainly more efficient and deadly, the bow and arrow, when used correctly, makes people just as dead.

Sure, up to 300 yards :) After that, it's useless, while machine gun still works impressively :)

And, I was quoting Obiwan about 2 10-year olds.

OK, so the ten year olds, one with a bow and arrow, the other with a machine gun- obviously a slanted yet true take on the situation.

But if you condemn the kid with the machine gun, here is the problem- BOTH KIDS are shooting at each other, it just so happens one kid had wooden shafts and the other had 200 rounds of lead.

But it is still BOTH sides, and a TANK needs to roll in between the two and seperate them.

You can argue who started the shooting, why, how it's "unfair" one kid has medevial weaponry and the other has something straight from the local armory- but WAR IS NOT FAIR, and it DOES NOT MATTER WHO started the fight, but rather WHO WILL END IT.

Send in that tank, US.
Send in that tank, UK.
Send in that tank, France and Germany.
Send in that tank, Russia.
Send in that tank, the United Nations.

Here we agree, obiwan.... but stopping that war is not going to happen. Not from the outside. And THAT is unfair. To both Palestinian and Israeli civilians.

"I'm sure that every civilian casualty all over the world in the few last decades very much appreciates this."

They might not. But I'm glad our new bombs have a Circular Error Probable of 3.6 feet instead of 310 feet. It means there's a whole lot less people to be angry at us, because we're 86 times more accurate.

"BTW, my opinion is that precision-weapons are used to minimize risk of repetitious attacks on specific targets and therefore to minimize risks for the aircraft crews."

You would believe that.

"If there was REAL concern for the civilian victims, there would be no bombing at all."

No, only short sighted hippies think that violence isn't necessary.

"There is no real difference between "Terrorism" and "War"."

Except there is. Terrorism is strapping bombs to people and having them go commit suicide and take a large number of innocent civilians with them. War is soldiers engaging soldiers. Its really sad that you need this pointed out for you.

"The weaker also have the right to fight them, with whatever means necessary."

If that's the case, Denzel, then Israel has the right to buy or rent some B-52 bombers from the US, stop using laser-guided weapons and carpet bomb the whole fucking area. There -are- rules in war. There aren't any rules in terrorism, and that is what you're advocating in that statement.

"In the meantime, whoever shoots anything at anyone, is a bloody murderer, and no amount of "self-defense" crap excuse is going to change that fact."

Except that murder is defined as unlawful killing of another human being with malice, and "self-defense" is the difference between Justifiable Homicide and illegal murder.

If you came in my house and didn't belong there, you'd die. That's self defense. If you were outside of my house, throwing explosives and shooting at the house, you'd die. That's self defense. If you were walking down the street and I dropped a Hamas rocket on your head, that's murder.