Well, without getting in the middle of this predictably tedious argument ( in which, as usual, I tend to agree in part with multiple posters on “both” sides of the issue - though at the end of the day, I, like most people I think, believe there are no legitimate justifications for acts of terror - reasons, but no justifications ), I will say that I think using the example of Antebellum Slavery as an analogy for the Palestinian situation is badly flawed. From any angle, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Not only are the Palestinians, no matter how badly off they may be, nowhere near as oppressed as actual slaves, but the lack of substantive slave uprisings in the U.S. in that period says absolutely nothing about the character of either those slaves or the Palestinians. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
At any rate, the most well-known southern slave revolt, Nat Turner’s Rebellion, probably could be fairly labeled “terrorist” by modern standards, since he and his band pretty indiscriminately slaughtered men, women, and children.
Can you even fathom how offensive it is to even skirt around accusing Israel of genocide? If any people know what genocide is, it is most certainly the Jews. The fact of the matter is that Israel is not engaged in any campaign to eradicate the Palestinians, yet the stated goal of the PLO is the elimination of Israel.
Squish!
I tried to find Your E-mail address, but could not. I will answer Your question about my origins by E-mail, because it is not the topic of this tread.
Henry
Squish wrote, quote:
“Well, I’m certainly seeing a lot of bigotry and hatred in this thread, not to mention a willful lack of empathy and understanding. But then, it’s easier to simply hate than it is to try to look at things from another point of view, isn’t it.”
So let us try emphaty. I am still asking: What would You do if Your neighbourhood would be occupied?
Lie down or fight? Or something else?
Should we send guns to the Palestinians and ask them to concentrate on the solidiers?
Should I send guns to You, if Your neighbourhood would be occupied (if You did not have any)? milroyj wrote:
“Oppression? As if that’s an excuse? Rewind to 1850, when slavery existed in the U.S. The slaves were truly oppressed, yet they did not resort to terrorism. Why do the Palestinians?”
In my thinking the question is more like: Why did not the slaves oppose by weapons, the oppressors, in big scale?
I think that the slaves did not feel that the place where they lived (plantage or whatever) was their “fatherland”.
My opinion is that the oppressors should be fought always.
By what means, that is the big question. Personally I think the Palestinians should concentrate on military targets.
If the Greeks would not have fought about 400 BC, where would we be now?
Where would our most beloved red-necks be?
I would surely miss them.
Well to be fair Monty, I don’t get the impression that istara was making that accusation or even implying it. My understanding was that she was using the somewhat hyperbolic phrase “geographic genocide” to describe her view on some hypothetical scenario of a massive and permanent Israeli occupation of that entire corner of the Middle East. Which of course will not only never happen, but could never be sustained anyway, so it’s a moot point.
An inaccurate use of the word genocide IMHO, but not really an accusation about current situation per se. That was my take, anyway. YMMV.
I’m sure you’re right, Tamerlane. The use of the word, though, is, at best, ill-advised. At worst, intentionally hurtful. I’d prefer to think you’re right, though.
I wasn’t trying to offend, so apologies for that. The use of the word was deliberate though, to make the strongest possible point. It is inexcusable in our modern age - given the perspective we should have from the horrors committed during the last century and previously - that an entire nation could be wiped out by an aggressor. I am referring both to the Palestinians and the Israelis in this, equally. Whatever the intentions of either side are, it is the actions that will finally decide history.
Because if either side is wiped off the map, doubtless with great loss of human life from direct fighting and the collateral damage of war (starvation, disease etc), with the remaining population forced into mass exile throughout the world - how else should we describe such an evil?
Mass exile != Mass extinction. Anyway, I’d really love for all the countries to just quit fighting and form one great big happy world community thus making all this “who owns what land” stuff irrelevant.
Sure, glad to.
[list=1][li]The US gave plenty of advance warning that the city was about to be destroyed.[/li][li]Japan opened the hostilities by launching a sneak attack the US while we were in the middle of negotiations for peace.[/li][li]Japan was signatory to a treaty whose goal was world domination.[/li][li]Japan committed numerous atrocities against its prisoners of war (I know this second hand - my Uncle was a prisoner in the Bataan Death March and remained a POW for 3 years)[/li][li]Japan staged hostile takeovers of its Asian neighbors.[/li][li]Japan brutalized the civilian populations of occupied territories.[/li][li]Japan had to be defeated. The only alternative was an invasion that would have cost millions of lives, on both sides.[/li][li]We are a sovereign nation that was in an openly declared war with a formal enemy.[/li][li]Japan staged attacks against US civilians (they were unsuccessful, but does that make it better?).[/li][li]It’s really easy to sit there in your chair with 60 years of perspective and say what Truman should or shouldn’t have done, isn’t it?[/li]
[li]Israel has offered citizenship to the Palestinian refugees.[/li][li]Israel did not occupy their territory militarily, they purchased a large portion, and the state was created by the UN in conjunction with the British administrators of the territory.[/li][li]The people who are crying about their land are the ones who chose to reject citizenship in Israel.[/li][li]The Palestinians have repeatedly refused peace offers and deals that included pretty much everything they are asking for.[/li][li]The Palestinians are the ones who refuse to share and area with the Jews, not the other way around. If Israel eased off militarily, the attacks would increase. You don’t reward behavior like this, you punish it. If you give them what they want, you have demonstrated to them that their tactics are valid, and every time they have a complaint, they will resort to the same approach.[/li][/list=1]
I’m going to go out on a limb here and expose myself to attack from both sides. I could understand the approach taken by the Palestinians if I believed their claims to be valid. I’ve already discussed this concept in several threads in the past ( see here and here), and I believe the Israelis are in the proper setting to wage a total war.
Look at the facts: There are no official combatants. There are no true civilians. We have seen evidence that regardless of the steps taken or offers made by the Palestinian Authority, the civilian population (along with various organized terrorist groups) has no intention of easing the hostilities. The civilians are the combatants. They assist the attackers in every way. They, in many cases, are the attackers. Palestinians, IMO, are very hostile people, and stand against everything except their own selfish interests (let’s not forget that Palestinian immigrants were dancing and cheering in OUR OWN FUCKING STREETS the day the World Trade Center was destroyed…talk about biting the hand that feeds you). Regardless of the peace offers and cease-fires declared by their government, the attacks do not abate.
The only solution short of God leading a glorious attack against all of Israel’s enemies is for Israel to take war to the civilians who want it so badly. What? The rest of the arab world will attack them? Big deal, it’s happened before, and every time Israel trounces them soundly and ends up giving back all the territory it captured. It seems to me that the only reason most of that area even exists independently is that Israel was kind enough to give the land back after defeating the hostiles.
There is no true civilian in the Palestinian lands. Those people support and cheer for the attacks, they supply and feed the attackers, they feed them, hide them, and train their children to become them. There are no innocents on the Palestinian side of this conflict. If they want a war so badly, Israel should give them one to remember.
Joe_Cool: Actually the problem with your facts, is that they are not. At the very least some of your statements are flawed, if not entirely inaccurate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
[li]Israel has offered citizenship to the Palestinian refugees.[/li][/quote]
Hmmm…No. Israel recognizes the citizenship of Palestinians that have lived in Israel since 1948 and immigrants that entered up until 1952. But it has not offered citizenship to the Palestinian refugees en masse ( that I am aware of, I welcome corrections ) and with good reason. Such an influx would destroy Israel as currently configured. This is one of the reasons “the right of return” is such a contentious issue. I happen to agree with the Israeli take on this, by and large, though I am in the camp that supports some sort of non-territorial reparations.
[quote]
[li]Israel did not occupy their territory militarily, they purchased a large portion, and the state was created by the UN in conjunction with the British administrators of the territory.[/li][/quote]
Actually, the long-standing claim is that they purchased about 6% of what currently constitutes the state of Israel ( excluding the occupied territories, I believe ). Regardless of the accuracy of that figure, it is a fact that Israel militarily occupied a large swath of what they currently hold. Of necessity to a considerable extent as they were under attack. Nonetheless the U.N. partition was never carried out as planned because of the outbreak of hostilities and it should be remembered that the British were only very reluctantly “forced” into agrreing o the whole thing in the first place.
[quote]
[li]The people who are crying about their land are the ones who chose to reject citizenship in Israel.[/li][/quote]
Yes and no. Yes, in the case of some, perhaps many, maybe most. No in the case of at least some, perhaps many. The exact numbers are probably undeterminable, but at least some Arabs were chivvied off by Jewish extremists, some were run off against their will by Arab armies, some panicked and fled having no idea what the situation was and how safe they were, some were in the wrong place at the wrong time and fled combat zones.
[quote]
[li]The Palestinians have repeatedly refused peace offers and deals that included pretty much everything they are asking for.[/li][/quote]
A matter of perception. I would have taken the last deal too, with provisions for continued re-negotiation. It was better than nothing. But it was hardly everything they were asing for ( 94 or 98% of the land, as is often cited, is correct - but land has always been only part of the issue ). Although I think Arafat muffed it, big time, there were legitimate grounds fore Palestinian disappointment with the deal.
[quote]
[li]The Palestinians are the ones who refuse to share and area with the Jews, not the other way around. If Israel eased off militarily, the attacks would increase. You don’t reward behavior like this, you punish it. If you give them what they want, you have demonstrated to them that their tactics are valid, and every time they have a complaint, they will resort to the same approach.[/li][/quote]
There is some legitimacy to this argument and I don’t dismiss it. However the problem is that the extremists are controlling the process. By not negotiating and taking the hard line, Israel, IMHO, is playing into the hands of the terrorists that only thrive in a polarized atmosphere of hate. Not negotiating is giving in to terrorism. But of course this pre-supposes that there are extremists, distinct from the mainstream, which gets to the heart of your argument.
I disagree this is a fact. I do agree that the distinctions can blur at times.
No. We have seen no such thing. What we have seen is increasing polarization and radicalization ( situational and short-term I would argue ) as this destructive cycle continues.
Some ( many ) civilians are involved in the intifida. This is not the same as saying they are combatants in the sense of blowing up buildings full of people or engaging in gun battles.
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that everyone involved has selfish motivations, of one sort or another. Nor do I think this is always a bad thing. I am “selfishly” a lot more concerned about my immediate family, than I am about you.
Let’s not forget that a few individuals ( or several thousand ) do not an entire population make.
A combination of evil hypocrisy by the PA and more importantly, probably a minimal lack of control. Their “government” barely merits the name. The situation is best described as barely controlled chaos.
What, might I ask, do you mean by “total war”? Extermination? Expulsion? Permanent military occupation?
Not that it really matters. I am confidant that the vast majhority of the Israeli populace has far more sense than that. Aside from alienating the entire world ( not just the Arab nations ), most Israelis are moral people, not inclined towards such non-solutions.
He is correct, the US did give warning before the bombs went boom, and an invasion would have cost millions on both sides. If you don’t believe that, then look up how many casualties on both sides durring the invasion of Okanawa, then take that out exponentualy out for mainland Japan. Also when my Grandad was station in Japan in the late 50’s, they still had fortresses and defense line in place to help fight of an American invasion. Dropping the bombs was the 1 thing (ok 2 things) that convinced Hirohito to tell the military to stop fighting and accept a surrender to the Allies. So enuff of this whining about dropping the bomb and how it was a bad thing. You were not there and you were not one of those whose life was saved on either side of the conflict.
:rolleyes:
A view on the “Right of Return” from an Israeli peacenik which I came across while checking the refugee/citizenship issue. I think it’s an interesting take, but just to be safe, I’ll note that my views are not necessarily identical with that of the commentator:
What on earth is that supposed to mean alibey? I think you might find that if you take the route I indicated to Joe_Cool and then follow the trail laid out in the form of hyperlinks, you’ll end up at the Truman Library’s official website. Once there you might want to peruse the until recently classified documents pertaining to intent, plan and effect of both A-bombs, the strategic bombing in the Pacific and in Europe, plus the assessments of what a continued war in the Pacific without A-bombs would have meant in their meaning at the time.
I would be more than glad to hear your counter argument, but please not another second hand account of what the Japanese defense line looked like. I have maps of that myself.
If you feel it’s too much work to do the search or scroll and so forth. Here’s a shortcut.
I thought I used English (or at least southern… LOL) but your link just listed the effects and immediate after effects of the bombs, but nothing saying that they should not have been dropped.
In the end, the bombs were dropped, people died and nothing that you or anyone else can do will change that (until time travel is made available). and do go back to Okanawa, how many civilians died by suicide, or fought to the death because of the BS that they were fed by the military at that time. They were of the same mind set that members of Hamas, Al Quida, Al AQas (sp?) and others that operate in that region. It took 2 big bombs to shake things up and get the leader to reign in the hard liners, will it take another big bomb to do the same thing over there, by what ever side sets it off.
Instead of complaining about the past, try learning from it so it does not happen again.
slight hijack, is anyone else worried that Al Quida has a bomb and intend to detonate it in Mecca or Medina, then blame the west for it?
Hey alibey I think you better cool down a little. Did mommy spike your lunch box ice tea with amphetamines or what?
You claim that there was pre strike warning, you claim that the alternative invasion would have cost millions of lives. I send you to a reliable source that tells you otherwise and you come back flailing your arms around and screaming that I had better get used to the fact that the bombs were dropped 'cause ‘nothing that * or anyone else can do will change that (until time travel is made available).’???
Wow I’m impressed.
You obviously read half my post in the other forum, ignored the second half, and did not follow the link to the cite. Was there a point to what you started here that I missed, because so far I am not getting it.
If it isn’t so that this was what you intended to say from the beginning:
Maybe provocative statements like that one aren’t going to get you anywhere except into an argument that seems to be quite above your capacity.
Last but not least I truly appreciate your concern for my need to learn from history and I am so glad that you have set me straight regarding my whining, I’ll stop right away.
Now go away and play Nintendo or something instead.
lets see, it is in english. to translate, what if Mecca disapears in a big ball of light. heat and radiation. The bomb that caused it was set off by the Al Quada, but they blame us. How would the rest of the world react? Is that simple enuff for you?
and remember, it is a dangerous world out there, and if you don’t want any more Hiroshimas or Nagasakis, then no more Pearl Harbors, ok.
Back to 2nd hand info, have you seen what the cities in Europe looked like after WWII? Pretty much flattened, not all, some were even spared, but a lot were flattened especally in Germany and that was conventional bombs. Lots of dumb bombs. When Grandad and my mom were in Germany after the war and into the early 50’s, could still see bombed out blocks of German towns and cities. And if the war did not stop when it did, my Grandad would have been one of the ones going into Japan durring an invasion.
But to end this, what is done is done, lets hope that no more nukes are used in war, OK:)
can’t play nintendo, the kids are hogging it.
