[rockwool]

No, it is not the same thing. Syria used the Golan Hts to shell and launch attacks into Israel. So, when Syria attacked thru there in the 60's, Israel beat their ass and took the area like any smart country would do. It isn't like Israel uses the Golan to launch unprevoked attacks and shelling into Syria which is what Syria was doing repeatedly for nearly 2 decades prior to losing it.

I know you aren't that thick...

Yes, they did used their golan heights to shell into Israel prior to 1967 but we got to get back to present day. They should be fully returned if guarantied that syria won't do it again.

Wrong again... Israel has made numerous attempts to bring peace to their country... even pulling out of Gaza and more.

So if yo get cought stealing and the man tells you to return what you've stolen, do you tell them they should be satisfied with you returning 20% of the stolen goods?

Yes. that is the Golden Rule...

But hardly civil or democratic is it?

Humm.. I don't recall Israel vowing to wipe Syria/Jordan/Iran off the map like their Syrian/Jordanian/Iranian/Palistinian neighbors have...

If you are suggesting Israel is on equal footing with that crowd, you are denser than I would have given you credit for.

And, yes, I do prefer Israel to Syria et al... At least it's a western friendly country with a democratic government and not a tribal fiefdom.

They've got their own shlt going on; a palestinian diaspora, they even got a name for it (but i've forgotten it..), just as bad but actually happening. A verry non friendly action.

 

[LordOpie]

If Israel didn't get spot on 67% of palestine (as I remember it) it was definately around that number.

There was no "palestine" it was Trans-Jordan (aka Ottoman territory)... which included all of present day Jordan. Look at a map and tell me how Israel makes up 67% when they're not even any where near as big as Jordan.

 

[rockwool]

back to the topic...should we be worried.



Maybe something to think about

Of course if we get dragged into it, it would fit nicely with Bush's exit strategy for Iraq.

This spreading to the rest of the world the next year? No, it doesn't seem like other nations give a fvck.


cut from itv article:
"100 rockets on northern Israel hitting Israel's third largest city, Haifa, according to the Israeli army. Hezbollah has denied firing on the city."

Hizbollah is denying the rocket firing?!! Interesting, is Israel provoking something a la das reichstag fire in 1933?

cut from the onion:
"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Didn't GWB say that there was no end to "the war on terror". A politician that keeps his promise! Quick buy some shares in Haliburton and the rest of the warmongring companies cus a new market is soon to bloom..

 

[rockwool]

war reparation is the name of the game.

Time for Vietnam to finaly get theirs?

Its a war pure and simple. Terroists just don't fight conventionally and I don't buy that we should be labeling them enemy combatants when they are in fact POWs. Attacks on civilian populations during times of war is common....look at WWII.

Defenetly, example: I know a village in Peloponisus, Greece, where the germans executed 1000 civillians as a revenge for a guerilla attack done close by.

Lebanon has a democratic government. So does Palestine. You just don't like who they elected.

True.

 

[rockwool]

There was no "palestine" it was Trans-Jordan (aka Ottoman territory)... which included all of present day Jordan. Look at a map and tell me how Israel makes up 67% when they're not even any where near as big as Jordan.

It's a colonial labeling and not the one used by the inhabitants of the specific place and has there for little relevance.

cut from wikipedia:
Initially, both the territory to the East and the West of the Jordan river were the British Mandate of Palestine. "Transjordan" was a word coined as a reference to the part of Palestine "across the Jordan", i.e. on the far (eastern) side of the Jordan River. On the western side of the Jordan River was the remaining 21% of the Palestine Mandate, Palestine which contained many places of historical and religious significance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

And the UN did and does lable it Palestine!

Almost forgot about the most important thing here; the people that actually lived in that area. Moving them just because a new state is drawn (Israel) is ethnic clensing and strictly verboten. Verstehen sie?

 

[LordOpie]

How can you possibly dismiss the entire Ottoman Empire's holdings as irrelevant?

Who cares where the word "transjordan" comes from... the description/definition is what's important. Just like the fact that the Romans called the land Palestine as a slap in the face of the 'then-Israel' when they invaded.

you need a reference better than wikipedia cuz it's filled with info from people like you.

Until you post a link from a credible site that somehow magically agrees with your assessment that Israel took 67% of the land conquered by Britain and France, I hope everyone here ignores you.

 

[Changleen]

you need a reference better than wikipedia cuz it's filled with info from people like you.

Until you post a link from a credible site that somehow magically agrees with your assessment that Israel took 67% of the land conquered by Britain and France, I hope everyone here ignores you.

 

[blue]

Loopie, you're missing something here...The Ottoman Empire was run by a Muslim Theocracy (eg, the dominating faith of the Palestinians), not a Jewish Theocracy.

Would you like to live in Saudi Arabia? Would a Muslim like to live in Israel?

Your opinion is so ridiculously biased and slanted it's not even funny.

Rockwool, Hezbollah uses Kayatusha rockets...WW2 Soviet weaponry.

 

[rockwool]

How can you possibly dismiss the entire Ottoman Empire's holdings as irrelevant?

Who cares where the word "transjordan" comes from... the description/definition is what's important. Just like the fact that the Romans called the land Palestine as a slap in the face of the 'then-Israel' when they invaded.

you need a reference better than wikipedia cuz it's filled with info from people like you.

Until you post a link from a credible site that somehow magically agrees with your assessment that Israel took 67% of the land conquered by Britain and France, I hope everyone here ignores you.

C'mon, that's not what I said. I know from Greece which was under Ottoman rule for 400years that they had different names to what had been for litteraly thousands of years!
Now how come my mothers village who in greek is called Gefyra in turkish is Topsin?!! The capital of Macedonia is called Thessaloniki but in turkish Solon?!!
The fact that the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. is today by the world called Macedonia (not with the aproval of Greece) is due to the Turks (Ottomans) not caring enough about facts/history when they drew their maps, and when they labeld the slavic dialect, that the "South Serbians" spoke, Macedonian. A brittish linguist picked it up later and after the IIWW Tito had expansionist thoughts and wanted a port in the mediteranian, so he renamed South Serbia to Macedonia, that's how the story goes...
The fact that the slavs didn't come to that region until 500-700 A.D. and that Macedonians were Helenists (Greeks) that had lived there for thousands of years was something the turks totally missed.
That is a perfect example why you shouldn't get hung up over what different colonial powers have labeled their conquests.
They also used the tactic "devide and conquer" and there for also had a reason to intentionally rebadge different land.
What the people living in that specific area calles them selves is the most important thing.

Dunno why and what the romans called the holy land but it is 2006 now and both Jews and Palestinians have the right to live there.

I will try and find you the names of them two mapdrawers and the map they drew.

 

[DaveW]

Who cares where the word "transjordan" comes from... the description/definition is what's important.

You seemed to care about the areas previous name a few posts earlier??
As rock wool pointed out it was known (post ottoman empire) as the palestine mandate. the trans jordan you were going on about earlier is no more than a colloquial name.

Just like the fact that the Romans called the land Palestine as a slap in the face of the 'then-Israel' when they invaded.

Yes and prior to the israelite invasion it was known by another name.

You need a reference better than wikipedia cuz it's filled with info from people like you.

who use facts rather more often than the hysteria you seem to be displaying today????

Until you post a link from a credible site that somehow magically agrees with your assessment that Israel took 67% of the land conquered by Britain and France, I hope everyone here ignores you.

So far he has posted up far more verifyable links and information than you... Hmm which fella to ignore...........

Get a grip!

 

[ukjason]

Navy ships head for Lebanon
11.47PM, Sat Jul 15 2006


Britain is sending two Royal Navy ships to the Middle East amid contingency planning for a possible evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon.

The Ministry of Defence said the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and the assault ship HMS Bulwark were being sent to the region as the conflict escalates.

But a ministry spokeswoman stressed: "They have been given no specific tasking and this is simply a prudent part of our contingency planning."

HMS Illustrious is currently in Gibraltar and HMS Bulwark is close to Barcelona in Spain.

"There are approximately 3,500 to 4,000 British families registered in Lebanon. There are also 10,000 dual nationals," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

"We are advising people to stay put but to get ready for departure at short notice if necessary. We are in regular contact with our European Union partners," he added.


Would of thought the states will be doing the same thing.

 

[Silver]

Question for anyone who might know: I've seen a minor deal made out of the fact that Saudi Arabia has criticized Hezbollah. Does anyone know if that might be a legitimate diplomatic position, or just a way for Sunnis to put one over on the Shias?

 

[DaveW]

Question for anyone who might know: I've seen a minor deal made out of the fact that Saudi Arabia has criticized Hezbollah. Does anyone know if that might be a legitimate diplomatic position, or just a way for Sunnis to put one over on the Shias?

Dunno but the house of Saud is not really representitive of the public opinion in Saudi Arabia.

 

[MikeD]

Dunno but the house of Saud is not really representitive of the public opinion in Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, the population of Saudi Arabia would be more direct...say, by suggesting the Shia should all be gassed.

Rockwool, Hezbollah uses Kayatusha rockets...WW2 Soviet weaponry.

Yet their old Katyushas are being replaced with ever-more-modern versions.

You need truckloads of these things to saturate an area; it's rocket-propelled artillery designed to work against area targets, not pinpoint anything specific.

In any case, it's far from an RPG. It's not militarily effective as employed by Hizbullah, but it's sufficient to provoke the desired Israeli response.

To expand..the tactics used by Hizbullah and Hamas are effective in ending occupation of one's home by any imperial force. But they're not going to destroy another country. I know that they see Israel as basically a foreign occupier of Palestine, but it's a sovereign state now, de facto if not in the Muslim mind, and it can't be toppled by terrorist or guerilla action from outside its borders.

Alas, the guerillas and their supporting governments don't want peace; they want Israel destroyed, but they will never be able to do it. So Israel's stuck having to try and use its conventional forces and covert actors to convince them that peace is necessary by use of overwhelming and seemingly disproportionate violence.

It's a grotesque homeostasis. The muslim extremists will use ineffective but dramatic and bloody tactics to attack Israel, and the Israeli government must respond to these incidents with a force tailored not to the actual violence, but to its populace's emotions. And neither side will ever look at the other for what it's doing at the moment, but will respond to the collective emotions which have built up since the beginning of all this just after WWII.

Best thing I think could happen in the current state of affairs is that Israel solves the Lebanese government's "problem" with Hizbullah by simply killing every single one of its armed wing and its political leadership, then withdraws inside its own borders again.

The only 'lesson' that Israel gets taught, time and again, is that no matter what they do, whether they fight or sue for peace, an actor claiming to be stateless (although now they're part of neighboring governments..talk about having your cake and eating it too...) will attack them to provoke a seemingly disproportionate reaction and keep the Arab body count high. You can't have an ongoing war to try and destroy Israel unless you can keep Israel looking evil. And Israel jumps right into the role whenever it's given the chance.

MD

 

[blue]

Do the Arab states in the area have the combined might to crush Israel from all sides? I know they've tried before and kinda gotten smacked down.

Granted, the Western World would, at some point, intervene...but I'm just curious.

 

[MikeD]

My money says no way.

 

[DaveW]

My money says no way.

Same.

But it would be very very messy.

 

[blue]

Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Would the world as a whole be better off if Israel were crushed w/o nuclear consequences? You know, the Arab states invade, Israel loses, all the Israelis leave on boats...trying to keep it as PG as possible...

Discuss.

 

[valve bouncer]

Things were looking crook for Israel for a while there back in 1973. Nowadays the US or NATO will almost certainly intervene if the existence of Israel is threatened.

 

[DaveW]

Israel has a legitimate right to exist as to the surounding states.... but Israel does not have a right to do whatever it pleases. But has turned it's moral high ground into a fetid below mean sea level swamp.
Certainly it's behavior appears to be in breach of the Geneva convention/accord on an all too frequent basis.

 

[Changleen]

Do the Arab states in the area have the combined might to crush Israel from all sides? I know they've tried before and kinda gotten smacked down.

No way. They would be own3d once more, probably even harder. In fact almost definately way harder.

 

[Changleen]

Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Would the world as a whole be better off if Israel were crushed w/o nuclear consequences? You know, the Arab states invade, Israel loses, all the Israelis leave on boats...trying to keep it as PG as possible...

Discuss.

It would have been better if the people who conceived of it in the first place post WW2 had realised what a dumb idea it was.

Obviously, if either side could 'lose' with minimal damage and leave the situation cleanly that would appear to be a good thing from most mdium and long term perspectives. Being as Israel is the 'odd one out' that seems to suggest it'd be more logical if they left.

 

[stevew]

Being as Israel is the 'odd one out' that seems to suggest it'd be more logical if they left.

So it's Arabs only.

Is there a place you would like the Jews sent?

 

[blue]

So it's Arabs only.

Is there a place you would like the Jews sent?

Where did they all come from in the first place...

"Oh, well Hitler rounded you up to gas you and your relatives, so you can go to this barren inhospitable wasteland instead of having your former homes back..."

So, before 1973, did the Americans not particularly give a **** about Israel? It would make sense...The US doesn't defend Israel on a moral high ground, they do it so they can have an ally and Western power in the MidEast to keep things swinging their way with the oil and such...

 

[Silver]

It would have been better if the people who conceived of it in the first place post WW2 had realised what a dumb idea it was.

Obviously, if either side could 'lose' with minimal damage and leave the situation cleanly that would appear to be a good thing from most mdium and long term perspectives. Being as Israel is the 'odd one out' that seems to suggest it'd be more logical if they left.

New Mexico would have been good. Right beside a de facto theocracy anyways, and as someone else said here in the past, it would have helped with immigration, because the Israelis know how to build walls...

Having said that, it's not going to happen. And the US is NOT going to be the one to defuse the situation. It's hard to be seen as an honest broker when you're the one arming one side of the conflict.

 

[Silver]

Israel has a legitimate right to exist as to the surounding states.... but Israel does not have a right to do whatever it pleases. But has turned it's moral high ground into a fetid below mean sea level swamp.
Certainly it's behavior appears to be in breach of the Geneva convention/accord on an all too frequent basis.

I saw an IDF spokesman on CNN yesterday. He was very sure that there are no innocent people in Beirut getting hurt, because they shelter Hezbollah. He was mocking the reporter who asked the question. Sounded a lot like an Islamic nut who laughs and says that Jews should all be pushed into the ocean when you ask him if Israel should exist...

I found it odd, because when Rabin was killed, the IDF wasn't firing artillery into Israeli settlements trying to kill Jewish extremists. Were they?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Where did they all come from in the first place...

"Oh, well Hitler rounded you up to gas you and your relatives, so you can go to this barren inhospitable wasteland instead of having your former homes back..."

So, before 1973, did the Americans not particularly give a **** about Israel? It would make sense...The US doesn't defend Israel on a moral high ground, they do it so they can have an ally and Western power in the MidEast to keep things swinging their way with the oil and such...

changleen, the idea of the modern state of israel does NOT date back to post wwii. in fact, there is a explicit mention of it as a proposed goal for the zionist movement as early as the late 1800s.

now, israel is NOT the only country to come up from the balcanization of former EUROPEAN colonies. syria, jordan, lebanon and all those countries in the middle east came to existance thru nationalistic ideas, not so distant in concept from zionism.

there was a non-trivial jewish population in the area (with the self recognition of a people for as long as the arabs if not longer), who have the same right as syria or jordan so existance. and since this indigenous group has a right to self-determination, whoever they deemed to fit help them, or to move in, is totally up to them on any arbitrary ground (like judaism), as with any other state/ethnic group.
and as you see, there is no need to mention god or recur to any non-secular argument.....

so, its not about "the odd one" out based on "they came from abroad" in the simplistic sense, since there are some who are indigenous to the area who have all the right to invite over to their share whoever they want, specially if based on jus sanguinis, and those in turn, have then every right as the indigenous ones based on jus soli....

you could say they are "the odd one" based on the fact they are ethinical minority... but then, it could also be argued on that basis, removing all blacks from the states (even indigenous US born blacks) would be "logical if they left".

 

[jdcamb]

Best thing I think could happen in the current state of affairs is that Israel solves the Lebanese government's "problem" with Hizbullah by simply killing every single one of its armed wing and its political leadership, then withdraws inside its own borders again.

I think the IDF will lay waste to southern Lebanon. Soon. The more rockets the hezbollah launch. The more Isreal will fall into the role you describe. The Isreali war machine could easily run over their enemies.

 

[MikeD]

The Isreali war machine could easily run over their enemies.

Whatever enemies it can find...hide your AK47 and you're just another Lebanese citizen. I think Hizbullah, despite the tough talk, knows that 'war' with Israel is impossible...they'll bait Israel in, let it roll through a few insignificant militia skirmishes, and either wear them down guerilla/terrorist-style if they remain to occupy, or go back to flinging rockets over the border when they withdraw.

MD

 

[rockwool]

Yeah, the population of Saudi Arabia would be more direct...say, by suggesting the Shia should all be gassed.



Yet their old Katyushas are being replaced with ever-more-modern versions.

You need truckloads of these things to saturate an area; it's rocket-propelled artillery designed to work against area targets, not pinpoint anything specific.

In any case, it's far from an RPG. It's not militarily effective as employed by Hizbullah, but it's sufficient to provoke the desired Israeli response.

To expand..the tactics used by Hizbullah and Hamas are effective in ending occupation of one's home by any imperial force. But they're not going to destroy another country. I know that they see Israel as basically a foreign occupier of Palestine, but it's a sovereign state now, de facto if not in the Muslim mind, and it can't be toppled by terrorist or guerilla action from outside its borders.

Alas, the guerillas and their supporting governments don't want peace; they want Israel destroyed, but they will never be able to do it. So Israel's stuck having to try and use its conventional forces and covert actors to convince them that peace is necessary by use of overwhelming and seemingly disproportionate violence.

It's a grotesque homeostasis. The muslim extremists will use ineffective but dramatic and bloody tactics to attack Israel, and the Israeli government must respond to these incidents with a force tailored not to the actual violence, but to its populace's emotions. And neither side will ever look at the other for what it's doing at the moment, but will respond to the collective emotions which have built up since the beginning of all this just after WWII.

Best thing I think could happen in the current state of affairs is that Israel solves the Lebanese government's "problem" with Hizbullah by simply killing every single one of its armed wing and its political leadership, then withdraws inside its own borders again.

The only 'lesson' that Israel gets taught, time and again, is that no matter what they do, whether they fight or sue for peace, an actor claiming to be stateless (although now they're part of neighboring governments..talk about having your cake and eating it too...) will attack them to provoke a seemingly disproportionate reaction and keep the Arab body count high. You can't have an ongoing war to try and destroy Israel unless you can keep Israel looking evil. And Israel jumps right into the role whenever it's given the chance.

MD

The Katyushas are definately a different ballgame to RPG's. Still the respons is way out of proportion. A country needs to be able to functon and trade with other countries or it will lead to more extremism, in this case Hizbollah, from the isolation.

A really worrying bit is that Hizbollah has dismissed that it has fired the 100 rockets. Don't these groups allways take pride in and claim their ****?!!

You propose a lot of killing. But it's the wrong way to go. It wouldn't even work because in a couple of years there will be new guys to fill the dead mens shoes.
If killing is not the sollution, look at its opposite for an answer.

Man, nobody wants to keep their own bodycount high. They've realized that if the powers of the world gave a **** some action from them would have come a long time ago.
There's no differance between us, we all want to live, laugh and grow old.

Do the Arab states in the area have the combined might to crush Israel from all sides? I know they've tried before and kinda gotten smacked down.

Granted, the Western World would, at some point, intervene...but I'm just curious.

No way. And it doesn't seem that any of its neighbours want that (because they've realized they wont make it).

Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Would the world as a whole be better off if Israel were crushed w/o nuclear consequences? You know, the Arab states invade, Israel loses, all the Israelis leave on boats...trying to keep it as PG as possible...

Discuss.

Theoreticly, if there was no Israel it would stabilize the region allot. But as long as US backed and non backed ****ty regimes miss treat its citizens and the sales from their natural resourses goes to private pockets, there will be smoke.
Back to reallity; Jews have a right to live in that area too. A new diaspora is not acceptable.
Not all Jews ar zionists! It was only the zionists that wanted a state of their own. Socialist Jews wanted to share a state with the Palestinians! That sollution would probably fit most people on both "sides".

 

[MikeD]

The Katyushas are definately a different ballgame to RPG's. Still the respons is way out of proportion. A country needs to be able to functon and trade with other countries or it will lead to more extremism, in this case Hizbollah, from the isolation.

A really worrying bit is that Hizbollah has dismissed that it has fired the 100 rockets. Don't these groups allways take pride in and claim their ****?!!

Not always. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, and nothing is absoute...no different than anyone else, really.

You propose a lot of killing. But it's the wrong way to go. It wouldn't even work because in a couple of years there will be new guys to fill the dead mens shoes.
If killing is not the sollution, look at its opposite for an answer.

No, sometimes killing does solve things, and sometimes permanently. It's not an inherently invalid way to deal with some problems. And sometimes compromise just leaves two dissatisfied parties who will start to fight when the memory of pain fades just a bit.

That said, you'll see in one of my later posts that I don't think it's possible to actually accomplish the destruction of Hizbullah through military means, however desirable it may be. And you're right that sometimes killing certainly ISN'T the answer, or the best or most permanent. Everything's case-by-case...but to reject violence as an option or a reality is folly.

Man, nobody wants to keep their own bodycount high.

That's precisely what the Muslim extremists want, actually. The Jewish extremist settlers have finally been (mostly) overcome within Israel by its moderates in the name of a peaceful future...or an attempt at it, at least. (Note: this doesn't make Israel a bunch of angels, nor does it make amends for past atrocities, but it's practically the best they can do now.) The Israelis defied the extreme elements within their society and began withdrawals from contested territories, which was amenable to all. Now the Muslims need to ensure that peace doesn't happen, short of the destruction of Israel. They simply won't allow that, and lives mean little to them.

There's no differance between us, we all want to live, laugh and grow old.

That's simply untrue; it's a construction of your own naivete and desires, not reality. Talk to any anthropologist or sociologist.

 

[rockwool]

Things were looking crook for Israel for a while there back in 1973. Nowadays the US or NATO will almost certainly intervene if the existence of Israel is threatened.

Its a pity Israel wasn't left to grow in peace. It used to have a some what different view on things that started to change in the 70's. The philosophy of the kibbutz's used to permeate the whole country. No doubt all the Arab wars against them have contributed a large part in making it this extremist state.

The situaton with the Hamas government today is that they haven't recognized Israel as a state. The Swedish and other western governments have expressed that if Hamas don't recognize Israel they will ot have anything to do with them, nor will the aid to Palestine continue.
Strangely there has been no mention of that Israel haven't recognized Palestine eather!
Abbas, the president of Palestine have been pressuring Hamas to recognize Israel and threatening them with new elections if they don't comply. Strangely the PLO, the party Abbas belongs to, never had any pressure as a ruling party from any country to recognize Israel!

Does that show how biased western governments and mainstream media is against Hamas and the Palestinians in general?

 

[Silver]

Does that show how biased western governments and mainstream media is against Hamas and the Palestinians in general?

I don't think so. I think it shows how shallow and superficial most media stories in the US are. (And if you don't think that is true, compare any weekly US newsmagazine to the Economist. Our media sucks, and it sucks because of what we like to see.)

In my view the problem is that "normal" media in North America won't point out that Israel has some serious issues it needs to address, and at the same time the fringe media won't point out that Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. are wrong as well.

 

[rockwool]

changleen, the idea of the modern state of israel does NOT date back to post wwii. in fact, there is a explicit mention of it as a proposed goal for the zionist movement as early as the late 1800s.

now, israel is NOT the only country to come up from the balcanization of former EUROPEAN colonies. syria, jordan, lebanon and all those countries in the middle east came to existance thru nationalistic ideas, not so distant in concept from zionism.

there was a non-trivial jewish population in the area (with the self recognition of a people for as long as the arabs if not longer), who have the same right as syria or jordan so existance. and since this indigenous group has a right to self-determination, whoever they deemed to fit help them, or to move in, is totally up to them on any arbitrary ground (like judaism), as with any other state/ethnic group.
and as you see, there is no need to mention god or recur to any non-secular argument.....

so, its not about "the odd one" out based on "they came from abroad" in the simplistic sense, since there are some who are indigenous to the area who have all the right to invite over to their share whoever they want, specially if based on jus sanguinis, and those in turn, have then every right as the indigenous ones based on jus soli....

you could say they are "the odd one" based on the fact they are ethinical minority... but then, it could also be argued on that basis, removing all blacks from the states (even indigenous US born blacks) would be "logical if they left".

Sadly we are led to belive that zionism is the only Jewish movement.

All countries/people that have been occupied have had nationalistic movements and ideas.
But as far as I know zionism is the only one to have had two UN resolutions against them for beeing racist.

 

[rockwool]

That said, you'll see in one of my later posts that I don't think it's possible to actually accomplish the destruction of Hizbullah through military means, however desirable it may be. And you're right that sometimes killing certainly ISN'T the answer, or the best or most permanent. Everything's case-by-case...but to reject violence as an option or a reality is folly.That's precisely what the Muslim extremists want, actually. The Jewish extremist settlers have finally been (mostly) overcome within Israel by its moderates in the name of a peaceful future...or an attempt at it, at least. (Note: this doesn't make Israel a bunch of angels, nor does it make amends for past atrocities, but it's practically the best they can do now.) The Israelis defied the extreme elements within their society and began withdrawals from contested territories, which was amenable to all. Now the Muslims need to ensure that peace doesn't happen, short of the destruction of Israel. They simply won't allow that, and lives mean little to them. That's simply untrue; it's a construction of your own naivete and desires, not reality. Talk to any anthropologist or sociologist.

I'm not a pacifist, sadly, but the amount of violence from Israel is waaay to much.

Don't take it as the Jewish settlers have been overcome by Israels moderates. That is simple smoke screen tactic. Israel has no intention of pulling out of the West Bank or Eastern Jerusalem.

Definately my desires, maybe naivete too. But the only reason lives mean so little to them is becase so many of them dying every year while the rest of the world allowes this to happen, and by that showing the fact that their lives aren't worth a damn thing.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Sadly we are led to belive that zionism is the only Jewish movement.

All countries/people that have been occupied have had nationalistic movements and ideas.
But as far as I know zionism is the only one to have had two UN resolutions against them for beeing racist.

when did i say, or suggested, zionist is the only jewish movement????

i believe you are talking about a resolution from the mid70s... that was revoked in 1991.
did you know that too? or just forgot to write it....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I'm not a pacifist, sadly, but the amount of violence from Israel is waaay to much.

Don't take it as the Jewish settlers have been overcome by Israels moderates. That is simple smoke screen tactic. Israel has no intention of pulling out of the West Bank or Eastern Jerusalem.

Definately my desires, maybe naivete too. But the only reason lives mean so little to them is becase so many of them dying every year while the rest of the world allowes this to happen, and by that showing the fact that their lives aren't worth a damn thing.

pulling out from 90% of the west bank was offered in camp david in 2000.
arafat flat out rejected the offer without making any counter-offer.

any expectative of israel pulling out from the entire west bank and jerusalem is flat out dellusional. it was a heck of a war for them to keep that land. is naive to believe israel will concede jerusalem specially to the palestinian authority.
plus anyways, it was taken from jordan (who in turn took it after 48), and could be rightly argued a form of war reparation.

 

[rockwool]

I don't think so. I think it shows how shallow and superficial most media stories in the US are. (And if you don't think that is true, compare any weekly US newsmagazine to the Economist. Our media sucks, and it sucks because of what we like to see.)

In my view the problem is that "normal" media in North America won't point out that Israel has some serious issues it needs to address, and at the same time the fringe media won't point out that Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. are wrong as well.

Ohh, belive me I know it's true! It's worse on your side of the pond but its not far from the same thing over here.
The "fringe" left wing media over here is allot better. But you can't just read that eather cus they do fault. I've found it best to complement that with finacial papers because they are only filled with facts (so th ebig boys can make the right bets), while all the emotional crap is left out. What I've found with them is that they almost allways confirm what's been written in the leftist press.

A few years back it was on the news over here how much an average US citizen is exposed to media in comparisson to a Swede. All forms acounted for; printed, radioed and televised:
the Swede was exposed for an average of 8 hours/day,
the American for 14hours/day.
What they discussed was the effect that that type of exposure has on the human mind subconciously..

 

[rockwool]

when did i say, or suggested, zionist is the only jewish movement????

i believe you are talking about a resolution from the mid70s... that was revoked in 1991.
did you know that too? or just forgot to write it....

You didn't. I just wanted to put some light to it.

I don't know from what years they are, only that there were two of them. One of them revoked? No, didn't know that eather.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't know from what years they are, only that there were two of them. One of them revoked? No, didn't know that eather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

lol, i find a bit amusing and ironic you said "Sadly we are led to beleive....." just before quoting slanted information....