Should America Support Israel?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Yes, but you are unwilling to accept the fact that it was the Arab countries + Palestinians who declared war on Israel, not the other way around.

Which is not even close to the full truth, and you know it.

The Zionists wanted an ethnic-nationalist preserve in land that was already inhabited.

The only problem with that answer is that the zionists were not in control of the UN in 1948, (nor at any other time for that matter). Yes there were the normal pressure coming from both sides in situation like that, but in the end, the decision was made by a special committee of the UN. The subsequent declaration of war from the Arab countries was a huge mistake, and is still at the root of the present conflict.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  That left Israel with no other option but to defend itself. If you can't accept that fact, then every thing else doesn't make sense.

The Israeli approach to self-defense provokes further responses which it must defend against.

If you can't accept that fact, then everything else doesn't make sense.

That is a logic that doesn't stand to scrutiny. Stop the fighting, and the road blocks, the wall and the blockade will disappear in times. Continue the war, and more repercussions with greater casualities will follow.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  And that goes also for the Palestinians: if they can't accept that their rejection of UN 1948 resolution is at the root of the problem, then nothing will ever settle. The real "catastrophe" is not the resolution but its rejection. And from there you get the suffering: so stop the war, maybe, just maybe the suffering will stop. That's not hard to understand.

I'm still not seeing why they should have accepted the '48 partition in 1948.

Bingo, that is exactly the problem - the very reason why the war is still on.



Quote:The Palestinian experience of Israeli rule is exclusion and subjugation. Why surrender only to receive more of the same?

Yep, there's a logic behind that: continue the war, and misery will accompany you.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  When I look at their list of demands, I come to a different conclusion.

I fail to understand how you came to such a conclusion.

The Oslo agreements accepted a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967. Camp David proposed a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The Arab-League hosted talks in 2002 called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. The 2007 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The 2010 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. See for yourself what Abbas himself had to say on the matter.

But then again, I guess maybe you know better.

You won't get an argument from me on the two-state solution as I agree to that. It's the other demands that can pose a problem.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  You asked the question, you tell me why the Palestinians sent suicide bombers?

To fight Israeli occupation of their territories and mistreatment of their people.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

Except the mistreatment comes from the continuation of a war that started in 1948 and has continued until the present day.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  A limited bombing will more likely entice them to further violence. To my estimation, if you are going to bomb, then do not restrict that bombing only to certain areas, and do not alert the population where and when you will strike. No other country does that.

Every other country does that, if they're obeying international law.

Sure, but Hamas isn't obeying international laws. So there.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Once you start bombing, you do it until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. It's just a matter of time before the Irsaeli leadership will summon enough courage to do just that. But they are not quite ready, but Hamas will continue its shelving, and the inevitable will follow.

Well, that's your opinion quite clear. Absent unconditional surrender, anything up to and including ethnic cleansing is justified.

I guess you're entitled to it.

Ethnic cleansing occurs with or without bombings. The bombings I'm suggesting is of the order of a tactical level to acquire a definite goal: the unconditional surrender of the enemy. Once that is accomplished, then talks of a treaty can happen. At the moment, talks of peace would be an exercise in futility. So no, I'm not talking about ethnic cleansing, in case you haven't figured that one out.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
08-08-2014, 09:01 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
No. They no longer need our help, and for us to continue to support them to pacify the people who believe we should back Israel no matter what simply because of biblical prophecy. Insanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 09:11 PM
Re: RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 09:01 PM)CarlyRoxanne Wrote:  No. They no longer need our help, and for us to continue to support them to pacify the people who believe we should back Israel no matter what simply because of biblical prophecy is insanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 09:19 PM
Re: RE: Should America Support Israel?
Nope nope nope nope nope
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CarlyRoxanne's post
09-08-2014, 01:44 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
Israel should finance it's own war machine for a change.
I think both Israel and Hamas need conflict to justify their existence.
Hamas are wankers for launching rockets at Israel. Israelis are wankers for annhilating entire residential blocks in retaliation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kiwihogfiend's post
09-08-2014, 02:36 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2014 02:43 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Which is not even close to the full truth, and you know it.

The Zionists wanted an ethnic-nationalist preserve in land that was already inhabited.
The only problem with that answer is that the zionists were not in control of the UN in 1948, (nor at any other time for that matter). Yes there were the normal pressure coming from both sides in situation like that, but in the end, the decision was made by a special committee of the UN. The subsequent declaration of war from the Arab countries was a huge mistake, and is still at the root of the present conflict.

As opposed to the UN giving territory from one people, without their permission, to another group of people. You know, kind of the whole point of the original grievance, that being unilateral sequestration of their territory.

But no, I imagine you still can't fathom why the Palestinians would be miffed at the encroaching Zionist settlers.


(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The Israeli approach to self-defense provokes further responses which it must defend against.

If you can't accept that fact, then everything else doesn't make sense.
That is a logic that doesn't stand to scrutiny. Stop the fighting, and the road blocks, the wall and the blockade will disappear in times. Continue the war, and more repercussions with greater casualities will follow.

And that same standard applies to Israel too, Israel can also stop their bombing of civilians and lift the blockade and occupation. Nothing is stopping Israel from doing so, except seemingly their own lack of desire.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm still not seeing why they should have accepted the '48 partition in 1948.
Bingo, that is exactly the problem - the very reason why the war is still on.

And yet the context is still lost on you. In the context of 1948, there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the terms proposed in 1948. But that is history, this is now; and in the present both Fatah and Hamas accept the existence of Israel and seek a 2 state solution based upon the (much less charitable) 1967 borders. People change, contexts change, circumstances change; this simple fact of life seems lost on you.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The Palestinian experience of Israeli rule is exclusion and subjugation. Why surrender only to receive more of the same?
Yep, there's a logic behind that: continue the war, and misery will accompany you.

The point being, Israel has done nothing to convince the Palestinians that things will be better if they surrender. Given the actions of the recent past, Palestinians have no reason to trust that surrender will get them anything else but more of the same. Given those two options, between surrendering and being killed or dying while fighting, is it any wonder why so many choose the later? Would you rather die on your knees, or while standing up and fighting?

Israel has utterly failed to present them with a reasonable or desirable alternative to continued fighting. Given the current climate of politics in Israel, there is no indication that their government would even want to.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I fail to understand how you came to such a conclusion.

The Oslo agreements accepted a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967. Camp David proposed a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The Arab-League hosted talks in 2002 called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. The 2007 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The 2010 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. See for yourself what Abbas himself had to say on the matter.

But then again, I guess maybe you know better.
You won't get an argument from me on the two-state solution as I agree to that. It's the other demands that can pose a problem.

You are correct, if included in that list of 'other demands' is Israel's insistence at for an 'unconditional' surrender.

For the record, the surrender of the Japaneses to the United States in WWII was a conditional surrender, whereupon one of the conditions was them keeping their Emperor. Even after the horrifying war-crime that was the purposeful deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the two atomic bomb attacks, the United States was more reasonable at the negotiating table than Israel is now. And unlike the current Israelis, they didn't have the benefit of hindsight; Israel does not have the same excuse.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To fight Israeli occupation of their territories and mistreatment of their people.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?
Except the mistreatment comes from the continuation of a war that started in 1948 and has continued until the present day.

Once again, a war continued by both parties; and which in the recent past has been promulgated primarily by Israel as the conflict has become increasingly one-sided. But your inability to see reality in anything but stark black and white leaves you unable to grasp nuance, so there is that.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Every other country does that, if they're obeying international law.
Sure, but Hamas isn't obeying international laws. So there.

So two wrongs makes a right them? Your logic astounds.



(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, that's your opinion quite clear. Absent unconditional surrender, anything up to and including ethnic cleansing is justified.

I guess you're entitled to it.
Ethnic cleansing occurs with or without bombings. The bombings I'm suggesting is of the order of a tactical level to acquire a definite goal: the unconditional surrender of the enemy. Once that is accomplished, then talks of a treaty can happen. At the moment, talks of peace would be an exercise in futility. So no, I'm not talking about ethnic cleansing, in case you haven't figured that one out.

Once again, even after the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civil population centers; even the United States didn't demand an unconditional surrender from Japan. Your absolutist demands, if held to, will do nothing but ensure the deaths of thousands of more innocent civilians and children; which will paradoxically make a lasting peace even harder (if not impossible) to establish and maintain. Continuing to push the Palestinian people that far and that hard, and Israel will do nothing but embody the worst aspects of Hitler's own Final Solution; a bitter irony indeed for those not ignorant of history (i.e. not yourself).

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 05:30 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  The only problem with that answer is that the zionists were not in control of the UN in 1948, (nor at any other time for that matter). Yes there were the normal pressure coming from both sides in situation like that, but in the end, the decision was made by a special committee of the UN. The subsequent declaration of war from the Arab countries was a huge mistake, and is still at the root of the present conflict.

As opposed to the UN giving territory from one people, without their permission, to another group of people. You know, kind of the whole point of the original grievance, that being unilateral sequestration of their territory.

But no, I imagine you still can't fathom why the Palestinians would be miffed at the encroaching Zionist settlers.

You have to factor in that there was a history prior to 1948. The UN special commision was fully aware of what had taken place - the massacres and the atrocities committed by both sides - and so their decision, rightly or wrongly, was based on that. Secondly, the decision was taken by the UN, hardly a justification for the Arabs to declare war on Israel.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  That is a logic that doesn't stand to scrutiny. Stop the fighting, and the road blocks, the wall and the blockade will disappear in times. Continue the war, and more repercussions with greater casualities will follow.

And that same standard applies to Israel too, Israel can also stop their bombing of civilians and lift the blockade and occupation. Nothing is stopping Israel from doing so, except seemingly their own lack of desire.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse: the blockade and occupation is a direct result of the continuing war. Stop the war and both the blockade and the occupation will in times disappear. Just the economic cost would force Israel to abandon those.



Quote:
(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Bingo, that is exactly the problem - the very reason why the war is still on.

And yet the context is still lost on you. In the context of 1948, there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the terms proposed in 1948. But that is history, this is now; and in the present both Fatah and Hamas accept the existence of Israel and seek a 2 state solution based upon the (much less charitable) 1967 borders. People change, contexts change, circumstances change; this simple fact of life seems lost on you.

As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

As to Fatah and Hamas, they have shown little evidence they want this war to be over. When their actions are in unity with their seemingly desire for peace, then peace talks will take place. The reality is that there is no possibility for any peace talk to even begin. Why? The Palestinians, through their leadership, have the options to continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. Only the second option can lead to peace talks.



Quote:
(08-08-2014 05:07 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Yep, there's a logic behind that: continue the war, and misery will accompany you.

The point being, Israel has done nothing to convince the Palestinians that things will be better if they surrender.

The onus is on the Palestinians to lay down their arms. It's their responsibility to fully indicate they are no longer pursuing their war. Only when that happens can Israel proceed to the table for some hard, honest discussion about a peace treaty. The onus would still be on the Palestinians to reign in those among them who might want to continue their armed struggle. And that means full cooperation with Israeli force to capture those. I have not witness such cooperation in the past, and so I'm inclined to believe that the Palestinians have never been serious about peace talks.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

Not everyone would agree with that. Some would say the U.N. had no authority to steal Palestine and give it to foreigners.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 07:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

Not everyone would agree with that. Some would say the U.N. had no authority to steal Palestine and give it to foreigners.

Some might point out that the Romans had no authority to steal Israel and give it to foreigners. BTW, the Jews were merely returning to their homeland, genetic evidence proves that they are indeed the same as the ones that were expelled from Israel. Here is the Wikipedia article in case you are interested.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 08:04 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 07:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not everyone would agree with that. Some would say the U.N. had no authority to steal Palestine and give it to foreigners.

Some might point out that the Romans had no authority to steal Israel and give it to foreigners. BTW, the Jews were merely returning to their homeland, genetic evidence proves that they are indeed the same as the ones that were expelled from Israel. Here is the Wikipedia article in case you are interested.

No, they have some very distant ancestors who once inhabited that area. That does not give them deed to the property. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: