Just so I’m clear Blalron, how long are you predicting that a zero-retaliation policy on Israel’s part would take to get Hamas et al to stop firing rockets/mortars and come to the negotiating table with peace in their hearts?
Actually, no. It just requires the ability to be affected by external data and stimuli. Will may not be “free,” but that doesn’t mean it’s immutable.
That’s exactly how the Palestinians see it.
And if I change, they will too?
It worked for Gandhi.
If the Palestinians stop all hostilities and terrorist attacks, will Israel ever stop the illegal settlements and tear down the barbed wire fences? One thing I know is that you’ll never be able to kill your way to peace.
A better example would be mexico.
Say Mexico through a fit about us stealing texas from them, and even later still running all the mexicans off of the land they legally owned in texas…those wacky Texas rangers weren’t all like Chuck Norris, they murdered a lot of brown people.
Say they elected a government that wrote into the countrys constitution that they would except nothing short of the return of texas and california to the Mexico, and they started launching rockets into Laredo.
How long, exactly do you think that Nuevo Laredo would still be on the maps? It would be a crater before the end of the day and Texas would have to drive even farther to get fake vanilla and Kahlua and onyx chess sets.
How long do you think it would be before we liberated the Mexican people and their oil?
We wouldn’t be half as kind as the Israelis
It worked for the US in WWII
Actually, Mexico is more analogous to Israel.
We have peace? When did that happen?
Actually we have good relations with Japan, Italy, and Germany. But those people in Yorkshire have never forgiven us for saving their asses and fucking their women.
not at all. Texas used to belong to the mexican people…Many of them want it back. Not the other way around.
Pretty sure we haven’t had any aggression from the Japanese since we nuked them…thier civilizans in fact.
Or Germany since we fire bombed them into submission.
Which is jusyt like the Jews wanting Israel back. The only difference (besides their former ownership being far more remote) was that they were successful in being able to get some of it back.
Your analogy would be more akin to Mexico being successful in being able to reoccupy Texas (with the help of a bunch of other countries who decide they have a right to it) then coming in and bulldozing people off their land, moving them into ghettos and making them second class citizens.
And yet, we still got the Cold war, Korea and Vietnam, all as direct result of WWII (and that’s just what involved the US).
What we did to Japan was one of the greatest atrocities in history, by the way. Every bit as indefensible and evil as 9/11, except, of course, we killed a lot more innocent people.
no, then mexico would be more like israel…sort of…but I’m talking present day real life
The US got Texas from the Republic of Texas, who took it by force. but were the “legal” owners at the time
Israel got their land from the British who took it by force from the Ottomans, and the british were the “legal” owners at the time.
Now the US let the mexicans stay in Texas, in ghettos, as second class citizens and bulldozed them out of their homes (or just had the rangers kill them) when they wanted their land.
Israel gave the palestinians the option to stay, but they chose to leave because they thought the neighbors would murder the jews and give them the land the jews legally owned…at the time. But the Israelis did bulldoze houses when people were shooting at them out of those houses, and did occupy more land than the originally got…after being attacked. So it kind breaks down there. The Isralis had a marginally better reason for it.
So Israel is a lot cleaner in all of this…at least when they killed people it was because they were attacked first.
The palestinians have a legitimate gripe against the ottomans, and maybe the brits, but not really Israel.
But the US as Irael is a much better fit…unless the fantasy you put forth of Mexico actually annexing texas…but it hasn’t.
I think all of those things would have happened without WWII.
nonsense. Was it a good thing? No…Possibly not even neccesary…but it was not an unprovoked attack like 9/11. We were in a declared war that Japan started.
The people in the attack, excpet perhaps the children were in full support of the War that japan started so there were few innocents.
And I believe (although there is argument) that it was done with the idea of it saving American lives in excess of the lives it cost. I know there is a lot of argument that we could have gotten the Japanese to surrender otherwise but if we did have to invade it would have been bloody, and I think the people in power made the decision with that in mind.
So while it’s not a good thing, it certainly was not as indefensible as 9/11.
I think nuking Japan was a fine thing. Nuking Japan saved 5 million lives, 4 million of them Japanese. When Dio wants to make one point he’s “Well, would you kill your family to get ObL? you wouldn’t? Why not?”, when he wants to make another suddenly Hiroshima and Nagasaki are “one of the greatest atrocities in history”. He wants it both ways, depending on which side of his mouth he’s talking out of.
What the fuck is the contradiction here? I’m saying it’s wrong in both scenarios, moron. What the fuck fucking “both sides” are you fucking talking about?
Oh, my mistake then. I misunderstood your point on the first hypothetical then. If you think both are wrong, then you’re consistent. Mentally ill, but consistent. I apologize.
Ermmm… huh?
Nothing annoys me more in Arab-Israeli debates than folks with no idea what the fuck they’re talking about. Guess what? Israel has been fine depending on it’s own devices since 1948. Its primary suppliers of arms until 1967 were the British and the French. The US only began supplying military arms in any real quantities after 1967, and only began giving Israel free military arms after the Camp David Accords. Why? To balance the US giving billions of dollars to Egypt because it cut itself off from the Soviet Union and any military suppllies from there in exchange for peace with Israel the return of the Siani. If the US was to cut off all aid to Israel tomorrow, Israel would be in no danger of being wiped off the map from its neighbors. They’ve become quite self-sufficent in producing military arms by themselves over the last 60 years. They produce thier own tanks, jet aircraft, small arms, artillery and ammuntion. They’re no fools. If the US was to dissapear tomorrow they would be able to keep themselves afloat quite well, thank you very much. Israel is not an invalid depending on US charity. They did quite well before the US started pumping billions of dollars into their economy and I’m sure they will stay afloat quiet fine without it.
Sad that anyone could call the Camp David peace accord a failure. Egypt was Israels primary military threat and a frequent source of terrorism and undeclared war (see the war of atrition 1969-70.) The Camp David accords have actually held without any serious incident since 1979. It was pretty amasing that Sadat would break from a dependance on the Soviet Union for arms for over 40 years and the draws of pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism that Nassar had frequently led the charge on and abandon it for an acceptance of the reality that Israel is here to stay. Would that Hamas would feel the same way and follow the same course, but Camp David was a huge step forward in Israeli-Egytian relations. They have not gone to war declared or undeclared since.
I’m no fool and know how massively unlikely it is to happen in any forseeable future, but for what its worth I wish Israel and its neighbors could find a way to live in peace. Hell if I know what way that would be though.