What is your opinion on the Israeli-Palestenian conflict

[Gorgon]

That seems perfectly logical to me.

[213374U]

Umm...

[Rostere]

making a two people state was also out of the question, the demografical status in israel will change meaning that arabs will be the most of the populace and thus turning israel to an arab state

 

I think this silly sentence snuck into your post which was otherwise by and large factually correct. Again, this thing that people with different religions or people from different races cannot live in the same country is so 19th century. Why should there be something like a "Jewish state"? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. America for example is a country that's full of people from different religions descended from people all over the world and I think the US works pretty well nonetheless, perhaps because people have learned to accept each others differences.

 

Look closer. That may be the ideal of many of their populations, but the Israeli Armed Forces gave up on that approach years ago. If you are geneuinely interested look into their official theories on operational warfare.

 

In any case, given that their opponents official aim is total extermination of the state what would you suggest they do? What's the half-way bargaining position? Only half the jews killed?

 

If you look at the facts, their strategy could as well be to kill as many civilians and especially to destroy as much infrastructure as they can. Now, I don't know what their official documents say their strategy are, but if their orders are to preserve civilian lives and property, they're probably the most incompetent army in the world, and I really don't think they are.

[Gorgon]

Umm...

Hinting isn't going to do it, you are going to have to state your position. You don't think the endless cycle of terrorist attack and punitive action causing civilian deaths galvanized positions on either side ?

[213374U]

if their orders are to preserve civilian lives and property, they're probably the most incompetent army in the world, and I really don't think they are.

Their orders likely are, by order of priority:

 

1) Kill or arrest Hamas militiamen

2) Preserve the lives of their soldiers

3) Preserve the lives of bystanders

 

So I'd say they are pretty damn effective, considering that the #1 tactic employed by Hamas is using their own civilians as human shields and reaping the PR rewards their deaths bring. Or do you actually believe that the IDF's main priority should be the protection of Palestinian civilians?

[213374U]

Umm...

Hinting isn't going to do it, you are going to have to state your position. You don't think the endless cycle of terrorist attack and punitive action causing civilian deaths galvanized positions on either side ?

No, I don't think it has. On the Palestinian side, you have Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. What I was hinting is that, if Israel reacted the same way, they would have a government in power with converse goals, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Either that, or they suck at genocide, frankly.

 

edit: ofc, in Hamas' side it's just propaganda and tough talk.

Edited November 28, 2009 by 213374U

[lord of flies]

Look closer. That may be the ideal of many of their populations, but the Israeli Armed Forces gave up on that approach years ago. If you are geneuinely interested look into their official theories on operational warfare.

On December 26, 2007, Palestinian militants fired a few dozen rockets, which succeeded at killing two Palestinians and wounding a third. As a reasoned and proportionate response to this attack, Israel began a three-week long military conflict which claimed the lives of over one thousand Palestinians.

In any case, given that their opponents official aim is total extermination of the state what would you suggest they do? What's the half-way bargaining position? Only half the jews killed?

What is the half-way bargaining position for a nation of invaders to get off the land they've stolen? What is the half-way bargaining position for a country which does not respect its neighbors borders or sovereignty to stop? The Israeli state is illegitimate and aggressive. It shouldn't continue to exist. That does not mean "kill all the jews." Anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism. Edited November 28, 2009 by Fionavar

[Gorgon]

If Israel started indiscriminately killing off Palestinians they would lose US support. They are merely incidentally killing off Palestinians in order to achieve some preset military goal. I hear this line of argument again and again that because Hamas has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel, Israel is justified in their continued military suppression.

 

To my mind at least it doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to avoid civilian casualties in their choice of operations, and not either from continuing the impossible task of peace negotiations.

 

IDF has to do something in response to the rockets, that's a given, but does it have to involve leveling entire neighborhoods only to withdraw and do it all over again a year later. How are you going to deprive Palestinian controlled areas of the means to produce haphazard home made rockets. It's bloody futile.

[urielrose]

making a two people state was also out of the question, the demografical status in israel will change meaning that arabs will be the most of the populace and thus turning israel to an arab state

 

I think this silly sentence snuck into your post which was otherwise by and large factually correct. Again, this thing that people with different religions or people from different races cannot live in the same country is so 19th century. Why should there be something like a "Jewish state"? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. America for example is a country that's full of people from different religions descended from people all over the world and I think the US works pretty well nonetheless, perhaps because people have learned to accept each others differences.

 

Look closer. That may be the ideal of many of their populations, but the Israeli Armed Forces gave up on that approach years ago. If you are geneuinely interested look into their official theories on operational warfare.

 

In any case, given that their opponents official aim is total extermination of the state what would you suggest they do? What's the half-way bargaining position? Only half the jews killed?

 

If you look at the facts, their strategy could as well be to kill as many civilians and especially to destroy as much infrastructure as they can. Now, I don't know what their official documents say their strategy are, but if their orders are to preserve civilian lives and property, they're probably the most incompetent army in the world, and I really don't think they are.

 

sorry for the delayed answer (can't use the pc in saturday) If there will be an arab mostly parlement in israel, jews wont be allowed to immigrate there, they will be forced to live in other states, and when one maniac (like hitler) will decide to kill them they will have nowhere to run.

the main idea of making this state, was to make a safe heaven for jews after their persecuion by local authorities in russia at the late 19 century, so you get the idea, why we are so pissed with all the world, and why we wer'e trusting no-one, every nation, kingdom, state at the last 2000 years blamed the jews for all their faults (officialy, or by mad mobs) so the jews decided, to stay in a place where no-one could blame them and kill them for being jews, well, that obviously didn't work.

[Calax]

making a two people state was also out of the question, the demografical status in israel will change meaning that arabs will be the most of the populace and thus turning israel to an arab state

 

I think this silly sentence snuck into your post which was otherwise by and large factually correct. Again, this thing that people with different religions or people from different races cannot live in the same country is so 19th century. Why should there be something like a "Jewish state"? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. America for example is a country that's full of people from different religions descended from people all over the world and I think the US works pretty well nonetheless, perhaps because people have learned to accept each others differences.

 

Look closer. That may be the ideal of many of their populations, but the Israeli Armed Forces gave up on that approach years ago. If you are geneuinely interested look into their official theories on operational warfare.

 

In any case, given that their opponents official aim is total extermination of the state what would you suggest they do? What's the half-way bargaining position? Only half the jews killed?

 

If you look at the facts, their strategy could as well be to kill as many civilians and especially to destroy as much infrastructure as they can. Now, I don't know what their official documents say their strategy are, but if their orders are to preserve civilian lives and property, they're probably the most incompetent army in the world, and I really don't think they are.

 

sorry for the delayed answer (can't use the pc in saturday) If there will be an arab mostly parlement in israel, jews wont be allowed to immigrate there, they will be forced to live in other states, and when one maniac (like hitler) will decide to kill them they will have nowhere to run.

the main idea of making this state, was to make a safe heaven for jews after their persecuion by local authorities in russia at the late 19 century, so you get the idea, why we are so pissed with all the world, and why we wer'e trusting no-one, every nation, kingdom, state at the last 2000 years blamed the jews for all their faults (officialy, or by mad mobs) so the jews decided, to stay in a place where no-one could blame them and kill them for being jews, well, that obviously didn't work.

It would probably help if you didn't say "we're fleeing persecution" and then persecute people simply for religious beliefs.

[213374U]

If Israel started indiscriminately killing off Palestinians they would lose US support. They are merely incidentally killing off Palestinians in order to achieve some preset military goal. I hear this line of argument again and again that because Hamas has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel, Israel is justified in their continued military suppression.

 

To my mind at least it doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to avoid civilian casualties in their choice of operations, and not either from continuing the impossible task of peace negotiations.

 

IDF has to do something in response to the rockets, that's a given, but does it have to involve leveling entire neighborhoods only to withdraw and do it all over again a year later. How are you going to deprive Palestinian controlled areas of the means to produce haphazard home made rockets. It's bloody futile.

I don't know what you're implying. I think you need to elaborate on what exactly you think Israel should do about the Palestinians, and what do you think they are doing presently.

 

It's not just that Hamas has X or Z as their goal - it's that they keep attacking Israel, their overwhelmingly stronger neighbor, that tends to attract hellfires. But defending their country is frowned upon... mindboggling, really.

 

As for the US withdrawing their support from Israel, why are you so certain? Looking at US foreign policy in the past, it doesn't seem so clear cut. And don't forget where Israel is.

 

But I suppose that with Obama, anything's possible...

Edited November 28, 2009 by 213374U

[Gorgon]

What Israel should do, I dunno, keep trying to reach the moderate Palestineans instead of giving up and simply resigning themselves to govern by force. Hamas is not a peace partner, but keep up the large scale incursions with their civilian death toll, and there never will be one again.

[urielrose]

Before this thread will die I want to tell a story (a real one) that happend to me.

 

while serving in the border (between the conquered palastine territory and israel) I was at a boder block looking for id's and checking arab workers that work in israel but live in the palestine territory ('A' zone as we call it, A for Arabs) while checking an I.D, an israely peace protester reached to me from behind and shouted at me: "why don't you let him pass faster, I responded: "this is a border, there must be a check on the border". all this while the line of workers grew thicker, all of a sudden some arab kids started throwing rocks at me, I asked my commander in the radio "can I use anti-personnel weapon" (while dealing with populace, you must rubber covered bullets which does not kill, thats what i meant by "anti-personnel weapon") "no" came the answer after I explained the situation. a molotov bottle has been thrown next to our post, and we saw the thrower start running , "can I use anti personnel weapon now ?". i ask the radio.

"no" came the answer after I explained "because the thrower was weaponless. now, after throwing". the "open fire" regulations in the IDF are very very strict, because every shot we shoot, we can be jailed by israely peace protestors, u.n peace groups, israely arabs and stuff, so im asking you:

"HOW THE HELL, CAN WE KILL SO MANY ARABS, IF EVERY DAMN SHOT WE SHOOT, CAN LEAD TO OUR BUTT BEING SENT TO PRISON ?!"

לילה טוב (good night)

[lord of flies]

"HOW THE HELL, CAN WE KILL SO MANY ARABS, IF EVERY DAMN SHOT WE SHOOT, CAN LEAD TO OUR BUTT BEING SENT TO PRISON ?!"

לילה טוב (good night)

Perhaps it is because being stationed on the border is different from being a member of a controlled, defined offensive with a clear military goal? Just perhaps.

[Gorgon]

I don't know If I believe in this constant sense of the imminent destruction of Israel. The six day war was a along time ago, and if anything racial diversity is a good thing.

[Walsingham]

Look closer. That may be the ideal of many of their populations, but the Israeli Armed Forces gave up on that approach years ago. If you are geneuinely interested look into their official theories on operational warfare.

On December 26, 2007, Palestinian militants fired a few dozen rockets, which succeeded at killing two Palestinians and wounding a third. As a reasoned and proportionate response to this attack, Israel began a three-week long military conflict which claimed the lives of over one thousand Palestinians.

 

 

If you believe that Hamas only fired a few dozen rockets then one of us has been grossly misinformed. Try hundreds if not thousands. In any event, can you imagine Britain firing a dozen rockets at France and there being zero comeback? Seriously?

 

 

What is the half-way bargaining position for a nation of invaders to get off the land they've stolen? What is the half-way bargaining position for a country which does not respect its neighbors borders or sovereignty to stop? The Israeli state is illegitimate and aggressive. It shouldn't continue to exist. That does not mean "kill all the jews." Anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism.

 

Good point. I wasn't being clear in phrasing. I meant Jews in Israel.

 

Question: can you point me at an existing nation which didn't steal its land from someone else?

[Calax]

Good point. I wasn't being clear in phrasing. I meant Jews in Israel.

 

Question: can you point me at an existing nation which didn't steal its land from someone else?

I'd think this depends on what you mean by steal, After all some nations are there simply because they've been quite powerful for centuries and the people they've stolen from have died out or absorbed into the nation. They also usually have specific areas that weren't stolen and instead that's where the nation got it's start.

[Pidesco]

They also usually have specific areas that weren't stolen and instead that's where the nation got it's start.

 

Wat.

 

Every single piece of land in the world has been stolen from someone, even if no one remembers anymore.

[lord of flies]

If you believe that Hamas only fired a few dozen rockets then one of us has been grossly misinformed. Try hundreds if not thousands. In any event, can you imagine Britain firing a dozen rockets at France and there being zero comeback? Seriously?

There would be diplomatic consequences - quite serious, I imagine - if British militants fired rockets into French territory. However, barring some sabre-rattling, there would be no serious voices calling for an actual war. There is a very big difference from "people who live in Palestinian territory," and "the government of Palestine (i.e. Hamas)."

Good point. I wasn't being clear in phrasing. I meant Jews in Israel.

People in the middle east love nothing more than an anti-Zionist Jew. It's the old "loving the convert" psychology; nothing convinces you you're right so much as someone from the other side joining yours. Destroying the state of Israel does not mean killing all the Jews, any more than destroying Saddam Hussein meant killing all the Iraqis.

Question: can you point me at an existing nation which didn't steal its land from someone else?

Question: can you point me to an existing nation which spends more per-capita money on its military than Israel? Can you point me at an existing nation which regularly violates the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors like Israel?

[Gorgon]

If you believe that Hamas only fired a few dozen rockets then one of us has been grossly misinformed. Try hundreds if not thousands. In any event, can you imagine Britain firing a dozen rockets at France and there being zero comeback? Seriously?

You are thinking of Hezbollah, and even they didn't fire thousands of rockets in one day. Although I don't know how relevant it is for LOF to talk about how much ordinance was fire on one day, I mean human beings have longer memories than houseflies.

[lord of flies]

You are thinking of Hezbollah, and even they didn't fire thousands of rockets in one day. Although I don't know how relevant it is for LOF to talk about how much ordinance was fire on one day, I mean human beings have longer memories than houseflies.

Except that the cease-fire agreement only expired a few days prior. And those two Palestinians were the only ones killed by rocket attacks between December 19 and December 26 (Israel commenced operations on December 27).

[Calax]

They also usually have specific areas that weren't stolen and instead that's where the nation got it's start.

 

Wat.

 

Every single piece of land in the world has been stolen from someone, even if no one remembers anymore.

true, but I tend to think that taking something that's been ignored and unused for a couple decades isn't stealing.

[Gorth]

true, but I tend to think that taking something that's been ignored and unused for a couple decades isn't stealing.

 

Sorry, just having some bizarre visions of the sudden explosion of neighbour feuds in the suburbs, when they start grabbing bits and pieces of each others gardens, because they haven't been used for a few decades

[213374U]

If you believe that Hamas only fired a few dozen rockets then one of us has been grossly misinformed. Try hundreds if not thousands. In any event, can you imagine Britain firing a dozen rockets at France and there being zero comeback? Seriously?

There would be diplomatic consequences - quite serious, I imagine - if British militants fired rockets into French territory. However, barring some sabre-rattling, there would be no serious voices calling for an actual war. There is a very big difference from "people who live in Palestinian territory," and "the government of Palestine (i.e. Hamas)."

Okay, try this: an anti-British party takes power in the Channel Islands, and they start raining rockets on England one day. France, seeing the chance to stick one up HM's, starts supporting the folks on the Islands, more or less subreptitiously. Here, France would play the role of Syria.

 

So, how long do you think it would take for the RAF to make a mess?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I don't really know enough to judge either side, the only thing I can say is that I think this will end only when both people get incredibly sick of the fighting and decide to do something about it.