The New Catastrophe in Gaza

Remove all ads!

My point, Dendri is that neither side is innocent in this. Sure, it may be difficult for Isralis to justify thier tactics, but how does the motley crew of desprate Palestinians justify the violence they commit against Israel? I don't recall ever hearing about a Jewish suicide bomber stepping onto a crowded bus, or kidnapping enemy soldiers, for example. I don't see being a "desparate people" as and excuse for their violence, at least, that's my opinion, if not yours, Dendri.

 

Um, Jan Egeland would be the UN's point man in the middle east.

 

@ Aldeth

We are of one opinion, actually. You will have noticed that I never lost a word in favour of suicide bombings or kidnapping.

I speak mainly of Israel because I think their actions even more reprehensible, for the reason stated. They are a nation organized around Western values and standards. I will hold them to that. Accused of killing civilians too often to call that accidents, people bring up the suicide bombings and their targeting civilians, too. See your post, for example. And doesnt that tell a story about the state of Israel? That madmen are what they measure up to, in effect, if not in (admitted) intend.
Though that's certainly not your opinion.

Um, thanks, Bion.

 

I guess my question then is why is Israel, simply by dint of their Western standards being held to a higher standard than the Palestinians?

I will be the first to admit that I feel the Israeli response to the kidnappings is extreme, and that goes more for the Lebonese than the Palestinians, although it's not like the Palestinians have been without torment these past few weeks.

That having been said, the Palestinians' actions were utterly stupid. It was the equivalent of seeing the biggest, meanest dog in the town peacefully asleep, and going over and whacking it with a stick. While neither the Palestinians nor the Lebonese expected the Israelis to react the way they did, they couldn't possibly expect such a blatant provocation to go unanswered.

Plus, I ask yourself what you think would be an appropriate action if soldiers from your country were abducted? I know for the U.S., our actions would probably not be signifcantly different from what Israel is doing right now. As I said, I think it's extreme, but you can't possibly expect the Israelis to do nothing.

 

Why can't both sides just live peacefully and get on with their lives. This whole thing is a nightmare vicious circle of finger pointing and blame.

 

Good question, Harbourboy. Hate can blind people as much as love can.

Are they? True the original settlers of the New Israel came from primarily from European Countries. They had been persecuted in these countries for centuries. I have no idea what they thought when they landed in what was to become Israel but I doubt they had any great love for the standards of the country they came from.

Further more Great Britain and the USA told them they could have Israel but they had to take it from the Palestinians themselves. The UK and the USA weren't going to help them. They had to fight for that land right from the beginning. I see no reason why they should be held to a Western Standard that Western Nations don't even keep.

Now do not misunderstand me that doesn't mean I think they are right but then neither are the Lebanese or Palestinians.

 

As a citizen of the nation that is selfappointed champion of the West and our shared values (human rights, for example - foremost of which would be the right to live) you can answer that yourself.

Russia is disdained for what is done to the Chechnyan provinze, but they dont take nearly as much heat as the USA does for possibly lesser transgressions in that "war against terror". Peers get different treatment. There are other examples. France and their war in Algeria. Very nasty. It's familiy business - different rules.

My thoughts, anyway.

That's not true, Aldeth. The beast wasnt peacefully asleep. Even with the withdrawal from Gaza were there continued bombings of Palestinian territory. It was sold off as eliminating terrorists.

I agree with you, though. That was pretty dumb.
Still, you can argue detached and cool-headed here all you want - that is of small relevance for the situation. There is little reason in the near east, but predominantly motives. Those need to be adressed.

I suspect that, too.
As of recently Germany has a different doctrine in matters of military and war (although that's once again changing...).
Negotiations, I guess. Pretending not to give into terrorist demands, yet secretly buying the soldiers' lifes and freedom. That's the way hostages are freed nowadays. It's pretty much what every nation does that has no interest in making a display of power or fullblown war.

Israel needs to come to terms with the neighbourhood. People need to talk, negotiate, build trust. I dont care much for the "These people want nothing but see us dead"-line, as handy as it may be for the hardliners. If that is what the Israelis feel like then they might as well shoot themselves.

What's happening these days will make hostility toward Israel last longer and make it worse to boot. It is simply unreasonable. Some prefer it that way.

Nakia, are you speaking of the US, or of Europe, too?

[ July 25, 2006, 23:29: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Both. Based on what I know of the founding of Israel I blame both the UK and the USA for what is happening now. It was mishandled from the beginning for whatever reasons.

Until ALL the parties are willing to sit down and seriously negotiate this trouble is going to go on. Each country has to take responsibility for their terrorists and hardliners.

Too bad some one I won't name screwed the UN. They might have been able to do something if they hadn't been castrated.

 

Actually, I didn't know. Hence my response. And yes, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop using general terms when you are talking about Palestinian militants (who actually comprise only a very small portion of all Palistinians). A more apt term when referring to Palestinian Militants and other related groups, for example, would be "Palestinian Militants", "Hamas", "Hezbollah", or even "Palestinian Terrorists". These terms don't slap a label on the entire Palestinian people, and, yes, I would prefer that you use them where applicable, since "Palestinians" usually means "Palestinians" where I come from.

EDIT: And for the record, I didn't actually think your point weakened my argument at all, since I felt it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Israel was justified in actively seeking to "set a nation back 20 years". Using the actions of a few militants to justify the purposeful destruction of the civillian infrastructure of a nation is just bad form.

[ July 26, 2006, 01:23: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Oh cut the crap already, it's not a small minority. It's quite simple, there's six million Palestinians in that region, of which more than half of that number voted for Hamas to be their ruling leaders. Just for the record...Hamas=terrorism. The other half voted for PLO, and once again...just for the record...PLO=terrorism. So the way i see it there is no such thing as innocent Palestinians, none of them are interested in a peaceful coexistance with the state of Israel. Ask 100 Palestinians what they think should happen with the state of Israel, and the answer will in all 100 cases be the same.

The majority of the Palestinians voted with a clear conscience for Hamas to be their government, if you vote for Hamas, you vote for violence, and Israel is answering the call, it's as simple as that.

 

@Pac Man: When your choices are Hamas or the PLO, writing in Donald Duck isn't exactly going to help the election along. It isn't the fault of the Palestinians that the only individuals with the resources necessary to run for office were backed by terrorist organisations. You also failed to mention that half of the Palestinians of voting age didn't vote at all (and the results were certainly not 50/50...they were actually 62/19.8/3.5/2.9/2.68/1.27/0/86....and the PLO was the 3.5%).

To quote South Park: when faced with the choice of voting for either a giant douche or a turd sandwich, you ultimately have to pick one or the other. I don't consider the actions of the (relatively non-existant) government of Palestine any more reflective of its people than I consider the actions of Israel reflective of Israelis.

[ July 26, 2006, 02:40: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That still doesn't hide their overall sentiment towards Israeli's in general. I have never met or spoken to someone of Arab or north african descent who feels it's quite well possible to live in peace and harmony with Israel. The only ones with an Islamic culture who do not wish them any harm, are the Turks.

 

We've crossed swords over this one before, Pac man. I've also known many Palestinians. I've been close with several Palestinian refugees, as well. They certainly didn't like Israel, but definitely did not advocate wiping it from the map. It is true that most Palestinians don't believe that they can peacefully coexist with Israel, but this should come as no surprise. They have, after all, essentially been at war for the last 40 years; in deed when not in name. Where you are wrong is in your assertion that all (!?) Palestinians wish for the destruction of Israel. Such an assertion needs a hell of a lot more factual backing then "they elected Hamas". Such logic ignores the fact that the number 2 candidate in the last election was a moderate, Hamas had far more funding than the rest of the parties, and that only half of the Palestinians of voting age (62% of Palestine's registered voters) actually voted in the election. Given the glaring factual errors in your previous post, I find myself doubting that you've ever really examined this issue at all.

[ July 26, 2006, 03:28: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Oh i did, i just don't take your word for granted, i have my own experiences with our Arab friends.

 

But apparently not from checking into things like election results and independent polls.

 

Well, what's the use of doing that if you close your eyes for reality anyway ? You keep talking about a small minority that wants to use violence instead of negotiating, i say it's exactly the other way around, and frankly, i think i'm right here.

 

@Khaavern

The ethnic cleansing took place in Bosnia not in Kossovo. As I have already said in one of my previous post, the serbian army never went to Kossovo, only police special units and armed serb civilians were operating there. Did the thousands Palestistians refugees in Lebanon and Jordan go willingly there or they were forced to abandon their homes by the Israeli army?

Yes, I don't remember albanian suicide bombers in Belgrade but obviously you don't remember that UCK blew up police stations and executed serb civilians.

@Bion

Then you have to think that Turkey's fear, that the creation of a kurdish state will lead to the loss of the Kurdistan territories that are now inside turkish borders, is far more closer to reality than Israel's destruction by Hezbollah.

 

OK, I'll give you that. The basic premise still stands though. It's the equivalent of seeing the biggest, meanest dog in town growling at you, and you go and whack it with a stick anyway. Then you act surprised when the dog attacks you and tries to rip your throat out. The main point of the dog anaology wasn't the fact of whether the dog was awake or not. It was that the actions by both the Palestinians and the Lebonese was a serious provocation to Israel, and they had to expect such an act to be met with a fierce response.

Now there's something we can agree on. I would like to think that Joe Palestinian and Joe Lebanese don't have a problem with Joe Israeli. Or vice versa. However, bombing the bejezus out of an area tends to turn the people living in that area against the people doing the bombing.

 

A fierce response. CNN put it as "criminally out of proportion". Here, here.

Since you acknowledge the strikes against Palestinian targets *after* the withdrawal from Gaza, wouldnt you agree with me that, in fact, the big dog Israel is guilty of provocation? All too aware of its biggie-ness and superiority, it invited, dared even, anyone to respond, giving it the excuse it was waiting for so that it could charge? And that bait was of course taken.

Ironically, that's the ill of Israel, imo. Her exceptional strength as a regional power doesnt do her any good, tempting her to be rash, unscrupulous and willful.

Curious that the usual train of thought always has Israel in the victim's role as a premise, turning a blind eye on her role as the agitator. Fine propaganda, I will call it.

 

Here are some interesting quotes from Hezbollah leaders from Yahoo

Those poor disorganized and random Hezbollah members. As you can tell, my heart bleeds for them.

I'm guessing he forgot to mention that they would be targeting military bases as targeting the civilian population would obviously be wrong.

How dare those Jews change the rules. We had a deal. We could bomb and kill your citizens with impunity and because you had to listen to whiney westerners who believe everyone should get along and be friends you would only do a LIMITED response. We always figured that was a cost of doing business. Now you are making the cost go up.

Our media offensive will eventually force the Jews to withdraw which will give us plenty of time to recruit new sacrifices (I mean soldiers) and to resupply.

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?