Israel

[Phildo]

One mans terrorist is categorically NOT in every case another mans freedom fighter.

Sorry, Rog, but they are. The difference is merely semantic and depends solely on whether you're looking at the situation from the perspective of the victor or the vanquished.

 

If the Nazis had won in WWII, we'd be referring to the French Resistance as "Insurgents" and "Quisling" would be regarded as a compliment.

 

You say "pot-ah-to"...

[Tugger]

Sorry sweetpea, they were in the Shebaa Farms, which isn't part of Israel.

 

And I'm afraid he is a racist. By the way you're bristling I can only imagine that you find this truth uncomfortable for some reason. I wonder what it could be

[The Bastard]

The 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war effectively killed off any plans for an Arab Palestinian state, the territory being divided (and subsequently annexed) between the major protagonists.

 

I still think it's naieve for people tucked away safely in the IOM to talk with authority about the onus being on Israel to reach out, in the face of extremist campaigns being waged against Israel, often at the level of heads of state, like the president of Iran's recent statement that "Israel should be wiped off the map".

 

Effectively these campaigns are a rise of a new kind of fascism and have a non-negotiable agenda - the rise of fundamentalism and extremism in the middle east has given many bodies persuing purely political agendas a means of using religious extremism as a tool to drive forward their political campaigns. Militarism and the destruction of Israel is for so many states a means of diverting attention away from the real political issues that would otherwise cause regimes to crumble - it's become a national scapegoat to blame for internal failures.

 

This thread is pretty interesting, but it's obvious that many posters here are merely attacking/mobbing Rog, rather than adding anything positive to the thread. No wonder the BNP is on the rise - funny how the most extreme racists are often those who've never lived alongside of another ethnicity.

[Chinahand]

Israel has an absolute right to self defence and I totally agree that Israel is facing a terrible dilemma about how to protect its civilian population from indiscriminate terror.

 

However I am a long way from believing that this right to self defence makes what Israel is currently doing a worthwhile strategy or proportionate.

 

I found this LA Times article a reasonable take on the subject. For example:

 

Although Israel's clash is with Hezbollah, the attacks on this seaside country appear to have done far greater damage to Lebanese civilians and infrastructure. Hezbollah has continued to shoot an unabated barrage of rockets into Israel, in turn frequently hitting civilians, even after Israeli missiles shattered the airport and highways, struck predominantly Christian neighborhoods and drove thousands of people from their homes.

 

I have great difficulty seeing how Israel's attacks on "Christain neighborhoods" of Beirut are in any way affecting Hezbollah's ability to attack it. This is the use of violence against a country to attempt to alter the internal politics of that country. Put simply Israel is attempting to creat a civil war in Lebanon as Hezbollah is blamed for bringing down Israel's wrath. The plan is to drive Hezbollah out of the Lebanese government and make the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah (as demanded in a UN resolution a year or so ago) and reoccupy the south of the country.

 

To say that this is a high stakes game is putting it mildly and I wouldn't reckon on violence ending any time soon. In some ways I'm surprised ... Olmert was high up in the Israeli government that drew Israel into the Lebanese disaster of the 1980s. But it seems he thinks he can be successful second time around ... I wonder how many IDF body bags he'll be prepared to offer in order to buy back those 2 kidnapped soldiers.

 

Edited for typos

[Bill Posters]

LOL!

 

I REALLY should read more of the shit sites like this one!

 

NO. You should read more of the truthful sites, not the main western press that is heavily influenced by Jewish factors.

We are doing SO much better at destroying filth without real and intensive regard for the safety of REAL civilians according to them than in reality!

I can't beleive you Rog. I am saddened to think people like you still exist. Sadly, as long as there are people like you, these wars will continue.

As for you, Lovenotfear, you really should continue with posts like this one! They do my old heart good!

 

On the other hand you could always try dealing with the truth, but maybe if you did you would feel as sick at heart as me at what Israel has had to put up with for so long.

 

Whose truth? You must be quite a sight Rog, a narrow mind balanced by a chip on each shoulder.

 

.

[Albert Tatlock]

Some excellent summaries Chinahand.

[Albert Tatlock]

This thread is pretty interesting, but it's obvious that many posters here are merely attacking/mobbing Rog, rather than adding anything positive to the thread. No wonder the BNP is on the rise - funny how the most extreme racists are often those who've never lived alongside of another ethnicity.

Don't try and infer that this is some anti-semetic thread. It is not.

 

What many of us disagree with is the UN's and Israel's failure to keep promises that were made 60 odd years ago. Several of us have also made analogies to what would have happended if the allies had lost WWII and could ourselves have been in a similar situation today.

 

This whole situation could have been sorted out years ago. Rog is only being 'got at' because he is talking boll**ks.

[The Bastard]

I think the problem with dealing with Hezbollah conceptually is that it isn't merely a small group of terrorists living in tents taking the occasional pot-shot over the Israeli border, it's a large and well-funded political organisation that has political and civilian wings, and is practically a government in its own right in the south of Lebanon.

 

The civilian wing runs infrastructure, medical and education services in the border region, and as it is largely funded by Syria and Iran with a pro-Syrian agenda it's at odds with the "real" Lebanese Government, who have made efforts to distance themselves from Syria following the "Cedar Revolution". Hezbollah's influence in the south of Lebanon has been recognised by the Lebanese Government, who in the face of increasing strife between the factions have offered them seats in the Government itself, despite the obvious clashes over Syrian involvement.

 

Effectively it's difficult to run an effective campaign against Hezbollah because they are so involved in the everyday life of south Lebanon, in a similar way to Irish sectarianism. They aren't sitting waving guns about in the desert, they're running their campaigns from within the fabric of south Lebanese society, and the two can't easily be divorced.

[Lovenotfear]

Tuesday, 18 July 2006

Neo-con Woolsey Calls For U.S. Attack On Syria

 

(For his mental state, see John Bolton's below)

 

Click here to watch the crazy in action ...

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Gibson-Woolsey.wmv

 

Woolsey, yet another ne-con nutcase!

[Albert Tatlock]

In fact all that Israel wants is peace. If only our enemies wanted the same. If only we even had an anemy that was willing to talk peace based on mutual co-existance instead of our total destruction.

Sure Rog

 

Got an hour or two?

 

List of UN resolutions against Israel and list of vetoes and negative voting

 

+ the latest US vetoes (the UK abstained from most!)

 

2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.

2002 Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.

2003 Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat. Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.

2004 Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

2004 Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.

2006 Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza.

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf, I'm quite surprised that you use UN 181 to justify the existence of Israel, but ignore the fact that UN 181 also established an Arab state: Check out UN 181 Here

 

ChinaHand .. I would have been surprised myself had I ignored the intention of resolution 181.

After all ..it is amongst the most famous of UN resolutions. It is also undoubtedly the most lied about.[by Palestinians and their supporters]

On this occasion Im afraid you have it wrong.

UN 181 did not establish an independent Arab state. The intention was to establish such a State and, indeed, there were plans amongst the founders of the new State of Israel to be the first to offer recognition.

Egypt and Jordan pulled the plug on the new Arab State. It never was established because those two Arab countries siezed the territories which was intended to make up the new State. So, the fact is, contrary to Palestinian propoganda, there never has been an independent Arab State let alone an independent Palestinian State in that area. The reason there was never such a State has nothing to do with Israel. The State was never established because Egypt and Jordan siezed Gaza and the West Bank.

As you seem to have missed it the first time ..this is what I said in my original post ....

 

We might also note it was the joint invasion of those areas by Egypt and Jrdan which prevented the establishment of a Palestinian State. The invasion was a total rejection of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which would have partitioned the territory of the British Mandate into a Jewish State and an Arab State. [We dont hear much of that from the Palestinian propoganda machine].

 

As you can see, I didnt ignore UN 181. Neither have I misrepresented the facts.

 

I also need to correct your assertion I have used UN 181 to justify the existence of Israel. There is no substance in this at all and does seem to be a perverse interpretation of what I actually said.

I mentioned UN 181 to draw attention to the big Palestinian lie that an independent Arab State existed in that area prior to the war of independence in 1948 and the attacks on Israel in 1967 which resulted, in turn, with Israel gaining additional territory necessary for its security. I find it difficult to understand how so many Western People have accepted this blatant untruth as fact. It isnt fact. There was never an independent Palestinian State in this area until such time as Israel crerated the opportunity for one to be established by withdrawing from Gaza.

I dont need to justify Israel's existence, neither does anyone else. it is an internationally recognised properly constituted nation state... Another fact.

[LoneWolf]

What many of us disagree with is the UN's and Israel's failure to keep promises that were made 60 odd years ago.

 

Albert, notwithstanding the massive propoganda campaign which has been employed by the Palestinians

the failure to establish a Palestinian State in 1948 [i assume these are the promises you refer to] has nothing to do with Israel. it was a joint effort by Jordan and Egypt [supported by UK and Pakistani recognition] which prevented the establishment of Palestine.

Egypt and Jordan siezed Gaza and the West Bank until the 6 day war in 1967 at which time the territories fell into the hands of the Israelis. For the avoidance of doubt the territories were never "Occupied" [another piece of palestinian propoganda] because no sovereign state held recognised power over those territories.

To avoid argument this was actually confirmed by the UN and the status of the territories was "Disputed" not occupied ..an important distinction.

After numerous attempts to negotiate with the Palestinians Israel eventually made a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and thereby created an opportunity, for the first time, for an independent Palestinian State to be established.

We all know what the Palestinians have done with that opportunity.

[P.K.]

One mans terrorist is categorically NOT in every case another mans freedom fighter.

Sorry, Rog, but they are. The difference is merely semantic and depends solely on whether you're looking at the situation from the perspective of the victor or the vanquished.

 

If the Nazis had won in WWII, we'd be referring to the French Resistance as "Insurgents" and "Quisling" would be regarded as a compliment.

 

You say "pot-ah-to"...

Complete bollocks. If Hezbollah were taking on the IDF in open warfare with a view to toppling the state of Israel then I would agree. But they're patently not doing that, are they? All they're doing is firing rockets at defenseless Israeli citizens to terrorise them. That's why they're called terrorists you know. Jeeeze....

 

I think the problem with dealing with Hezbollah conceptually is that it isn't merely a small group of terrorists living in tents taking the occasional pot-shot over the Israeli border, it's a large and well-funded political organisation that has political and civilian wings, and is practically a government in its own right in the south of Lebanon.

 

The civilian wing runs infrastructure, medical and education services in the border region, and as it is largely funded by Syria and Iran with a pro-Syrian agenda it's at odds with the "real" Lebanese Government, who have made efforts to distance themselves from Syria following the "Cedar Revolution". Hezbollah's influence in the south of Lebanon has been recognised by the Lebanese Government, who in the face of increasing strife between the factions have offered them seats in the Government itself, despite the obvious clashes over Syrian involvement.

 

Effectively it's difficult to run an effective campaign against Hezbollah because they are so involved in the everyday life of south Lebanon, in a similar way to Irish sectarianism. They aren't sitting waving guns about in the desert, they're running their campaigns from within the fabric of south Lebanese society, and the two can't easily be divorced.

Correctomundo. Which is why the IDF is holding ALL of Lebanon responsible. If the State of Lebanon can't or won't enforce a UN resolution to disarm Hezbollah then ALL of Lebanon is responsible for their terrorist actions. It's not the fault of the IDF that the Labanon Armed Forces support Hezbollah to such a degree that the ONLY way they are going to stop the rockets is to turn the whole country against them. As I have said before it is so fractured and disporate it might just be not only the right tactic but the ONLY tactic that will stop the rockets. Time will tell.

[Albert Tatlock]

Correctomundo. Which is why the IDF is holding ALL of Lebanon responsible. If the State of Lebanon can't or won't enforce a UN resolution to disarm Hezbollah then ALL of Lebanon is responsible for their terrorist actions. It's not the fault of the IDF that the Labanon Armed Forces support Hezbollah to such a degree that the ONLY way they are going to stop the rockets is to turn the whole country against them. As I have said before it is so fractured and disporate it might just be not only the right tactic but the ONLY tactic that will stop the rockets. Time will tell.

...and so of course all Brits would have been equally responsible for the actions of the IRA - had they attacked parts of the USA for e.g. !

[Rog]

In fact all that Israel wants is peace. If only our enemies wanted the same. If only we even had an anemy that was willing to talk peace based on mutual co-existance instead of our total destruction.

Sure Rog

 

Got an hour or two?

 

List of UN resolutions against Israel and list of vetoes and negative voting

 

 

 

 

What the law says

 

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, never formed any of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict.