The Middle East Conflict Thread

daveza said:
Reading through this thread one noticeable constant is that those on the pro-israel camp are advocating the extermination of all in Gaza - men, women, and children.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read it again, but a bit more slowly. They are asking the Arabs to leave Israel alone.
 
Yes, Israel says all they want is to be left alone to get on with their lives.

I have read every post here and it is clear that because Israel is not being left alone the answer is to wipe out everyone in Gaza.

I listened to Olmert yesterday listing a number of things that Israel insisted on before considering a cease-fire, while not offering a single thing in return.

That is simply not going to resolve anything.
 
krycor said:
Go back and check the last ceasefire agreement again with Egypt involvement, the Israeli's broke in on nov4th after which bombings started. Contrary to what some in this thread have posted, there was no motar bombings from Gaza for 5 months prior.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Any information we don't have?

krycor said:
Now you have Israel claiming its 'defending' itself against bombings after it broke the ceasefire.
Click to expand...

That's cool, if Hamas don't accept the ceasefire Israel can continue. I mean it was drafter by those evil Israeli allies Egypt after all, now poor Gaza can't trust those on either side.

Regardless of what happened before this is a ceasefire for now. It will save countless lies but Hamas is a so paranoid it doesn't trust its own allies. Then you know you have a problem because they care more about themselves that their people.

krycor said:
Do you honestly think they going to accept another one sided ceasefire with blockades?? Heck i know why Israel went in unlike the pro Israeli's supporters here. I just don't get why people are blind about this fact.

Now the current new ceasefire agreement they want to push thru makes zero mention of an Israeli pullout or lifting blockades(which you can check UN reports as to how bad these are during the ceasefire + after nov4th), and expects the bombings to end. If you ask me its very one sided. It also asks for observers in the area which the palestinian side isn't exactly happy about either (this i find both worrying and just plain stupid because it prevents abuses).
Click to expand...

Yup that Jew loving nation of Egypt (they only attacked three times in 20 years) is out to get Palestine, they clearly don't have Arab interests at heart :rolleyes:

People are dying! Everyone is complaining about children being killed on the streets, is that not more important than saving face, for now?

krycor said:
Then you also have another ceasefire agreement from libya? where the state is basically set free along with the other things the Egyptian ceasefire mentions but both Israel and US are opposing it. Ironically this one is supported by others as it calls for both sides to stop and provides relief too.

uhm.. what else.. the US seems to be stalling as per usual, agreeing on a statement but refusing to pass a resolution on the exact same statement :p talk about political maneuvering.
Click to expand...

Who are these "others" you talk about because I've heard no mention. The Franco-Egyptian ceasefire seems to be the more supported choice.

Now please explain to me how the Muslim Turkish army will be protecting and aiding the Israeli army in Gaza?
 
krycor said:
Something I am wondering about... I saw a news report where there were these kids with sniper bullets in them.. how is this an accident? please explain this? Unlike the ariel bombardment, which accurate or not will have civilian casualty, sniper gunshots are entirely preventable.

That to me is just plain sick.
Click to expand...

I'd like to read that link. Please post.
 
AvOk said:
wow, you place so much faith in uncle Sam. The US/UK will never attempt that!

Once again, please stop generalizing!
Click to expand...

You do know that Israel has a nuclear arsenal? They too are very restrained in not even threatening with them.
 
daveza said:
Emotions are becoming volatile today !

Reading through this thread one noticeable constant is that those on the pro-israel camp are advocating the extermination of all in Gaza - men, women, and children.

Please correct me if I have missed something but I don't see the same coming from the pro-gaza camp asking for the extermination of the israelis.

My question though to both camps is this -

what does your religion have to say about loving your fellow man ?
Click to expand...

Just remember the Torah preaches an eye for an eye - you attack Israel and they're justified in attacking you.
 
daveza said:
Reading through this thread one noticeable constant is that those on the pro-israel camp are advocating the extermination of all in Gaza - men, women, and children.
Click to expand...

WHAT???? :mad:

Please show me where any one of us has said that.

I have said, I hope they wipe out Hamas and the terrorists, but I never ever said anything the likes of what you have said. I take strong exception to that.
 
An eye for an eye is tit-for-tat which apparently is not the intent of Israel.

Gandhi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

In the 21st Century surely we need to dispose of this silly notion as a solution.
 
BBSA said:
When will you guys learn not to attack Israel. Do not come and cry here again if things does not work out.
Click to expand...
Oh ffs. Why don't you learn a bit about the region before you spout your mouth off?

Israel doesn't want peace. For the current regime, war is far more favourable, because :

* The right and left wings of Israeli Jewish society are terribly divided. It has been said on more than one occasion, by several credible scholars/commentators, that if it wasn't for the "Palestinian problem", that Israel would soon find itself embroiled in a civil war.

* Being in a state of conflict means that Israel can turn a blind eye/openly support the settlers which believe in Eretz Israel and believe that the palestinians should all gtfo Israeli territory. (Note how most Israelis refer to "Judea and Samaria" instead of the "West Bank".) It also means that otherwise aggressive campaigns can be claimed to be in "self-defence", when in reality Israeli actions ensure the violence does not stop.

* Being in a state of conflict with the Arab world means that Israel is a useful tool for US geopolitical interests, which also means billions of dollars of year in loan guarantees (none of which have ever been paid back) as well as the latest military hardware from the US, etc. etc. etc. Basically, the US helps to keep the Israeli army propped up which is very convenient for Israel. Israel serves as a counter-force to Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iraq. (This is a common American tactic of propping up an otherwise minority force to control the larger majority. It happened in Iraq and in Iran and it still happens today in Saudi Arabia [the House of Saud is extremely unpopular among Saudis in general]; Lately the Sunni militia in Iraq finds itself being paid off by America yet again.) If Israel makes peaces with its neighbours, it puts this aid at risk.

* Being in a state of conflict also means that other domestic issues such as religious equality can be put on the back burner. Theoretically, people of all religions are treated equally, but the reality is that there is widespread discrimination, with much of the land being owned by the state and being controlled by organisations with an expressly Jewish character. Many laws also make references to those who qualify for automatic citizenship, i.e. jews. This is quite similar to the state of affairs in South Africa under Apartheid rule (it should also be noted that Ashkenazi Jews routinely discriminate quite heavily against Sephardic Jews).

It should also be added that it has been said many times that Israel wants 3 things, but can only have any 2 among the three : A Greater Israel which would include what is now the West Bank and Gaza; a democratic nation; a nation with a jewish character. The real reason for the Gaza pullout was nothing more than cynical politics, and was often referred to by Ariel Sharon and others as the "demographic problem". With the settler expansion into gaza, it became more and more likely that Israel would have no choice but to annex the entire region, which would instantly add another 1.5 million arab citizens to its numbers, placing Israel's Jewish identity at serious risk. This is also the real reason why Israel enacted laws which denied entry to palestinian spouses married to Israeli Arabs (the official reason that it was for "security" doesn't pass mustard. There have only been 2 attacks commited by Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arabs in Israel's entire history, and for this, thousands of Israeli arabs have had their basic human rights [i.e. the right to live with their husbands/wives] violated. The more territory Israel occupies, the closer to this particular cliff the nation crawls. The negative growth of the Jewish population (many are emigrating), and the high birthrate of Israeli Arabs is viewed with some alarm. Some commentators have even suggested the real reason that Israel campaigns so rabidly against any perceived Iranian nuclear project is not because of any danger of being nuked (Mossad projects that Iran would be unlikely to nuke Israel, i.e. that they would behave "reasonably"), but rather that the existence of Iranian nukes would serve as a deterrant for Jewish immigration into Israel.

However, this cannot continue for much longer. Contrary to most of the attempts by economists and analysts to talk the economy up, it is highly unlikely that a recovery will be seen starting in 2009. Even if it does, the US will be in a relatively weak position financially, and may have absolutely no choice but to tone down most if not all of the wars and occupations it is waging. Along with this will be the support that it gives Israel. With unemployment numbers soaring (so bad that Ohio's unemployment centres crashed because they were overwhelmed with new claims), it's quite unlikely that the millions of unemployed americans will support their government's handouts when at the same time they can't find employment and food security becomes a serious problem for them.

Furthermore, it is impossible for a nation-state to successfully wage a war against determined guerrillas. Any attempts to wage such a war results in HEAVY civilian casualties which just recruits more and more guerrilas.

1/2
 
2/2

R/SGT mentioned that he knew an Israeli family that had come over to South Africa, and that the children were easily frightened and highly paranoid and often ducked under the beds at the slightest noise etc. Well, the fact of the matter is that it's a drop in the ocean compared to what the Gazans have to live through. Israeli Jets routinely break the sound barrier while flying over Gaza (on purpose). The end result is that a significant proportion of Gazan children suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (i.e. what vets suffer from for years after they leave the warzone.) When you live in such an enviroment, where you struggle to find food, where you live under a constant siege, and where your children as basically poep scared, it's not hard to understand why Gazans have chosen to resist Israel's aggressive behaviour. When your life is made a living hell, and you have little left to live for, it's not hard to understand why one would rather choose to die while doing something to end one's suffering. I sincerely doubt that anyone in this forum, who was forced to live in conditions similar to what Gaza has been facing for the last two years, without being sorely tempted to take up arms and violently resist by whatever means is possible. Our crimerate alone is enough to have convinced many that the best policy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

To that end, the original causes for the conflict is irrelevant. While Gaza is under siege as it has been, the conflict is guaranteed to continue indefinitely, and as I have pointed out, this is exactly as Israel wants it to be.

As a further note, the pretext for the whole thing is absolute BS. Israel encroached Gazan territory when it blew up the tunnels that were supposedly intended to cross into Israeli territory. However, if Israel was acting in good faith, they would first have informed Hamas of the tunnel and insisted that all digging cease immediately, and then wait for the Hamas response. Instead, they chose to shoot first without negotiating at all, knowing that it would invoke a violent response. And when they got it, they wasted no time in trying to paint Hamas as the aggressor.

Now, ultimately this behaviour does not serve in Israel's best interests. The various arabian independence groups can be roughly divided into three sections : The secular nationalists (Syria, the PLO/Fatah, et. al.), The religious nationalists (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, et. al.), and then finally the full-blooded religious extremists (Al-Qaeda) et. al. The secular nationalists and the Religious nationalists generally tolerate people of a different religion living under their authority. Even Iran still has a small group of Jews and Zoroastorians(sp) living within its borders. Hezbollah has repeatedly stated that Lebanon is for everyone that lives there, including the Christians/Druze. The secular nationalists rule without imposing any kind of religious laws at all. Saddam Hussein was also such a ruler (despite being a tyrant).

As it happens, the Secular nationalists have largely been discredited in the Arab world. Most of them were either co-opted or bought off to serve Western interests despite it being against the best interests of those who lived under their rule. These days, very very few arabs consider the PLO to be anything but the puppet of Israel, for example. It this this kind of apathy towards secular nationalism which has caused the rise in popularity of Hamas and Hezbollah et. al. Their religious beliefs are of secondary importance (although it is their religious beliefs which typically place them at loggerheads with western imperialism). The main thing here is that they oppose the West and the West's interference in Arabian domestic affairs.

But this is where things get complicated : the religious nationalists and the religious extremists hate each others guts. They are constantly vying with each other for power and influence. However, with each fresh act of Western imperialism (invasion of afghanistan, Iraq, et al.) the extremists, being the ones most openly opposed to the west, gain in popularity. With every single aggressive act, the West is laying the seeds for a MUCH larger and MUCH nastier war. With every bomb that Israel drops on apartment blocks in Gaza, hatred grows (and don't tell me that you wouldn't be filled with hate if you were in a similar position, because you're going to hate whoever kills your family, no matter what the damn circumstances are). Eventually, Israel really WILL be faced with a horde of people that would like nothing better than to see every single last Israeli wiped out.

It is my hope that common-sense and self-preservation kicks in before this happens. It is my hope that the worsening economic conditions will force Israel to be reasonable before the point of no return is reached. The West has been meddling in the affairs of middle eastern nations since World War II, and people living in the Middle East are quite understandably upset. (Take the nation everyone loves to hate lately, Iran : Shortly after WW2, they had a bona fide democracy with parliamentary representation. Iran made the mistake of deciding to nationalise its oil reserves, which didn't sit well with multinational oil corporations. The net result is that the West overthrew the Iranian parliament and installed the Shah, who was heavily pro-west and even had his secret police [who took many pages out of the books of the Nazi SS] trained by Israel's Mossad. After a few decades under the thumb of this brutal despot, Iranians revolted and a new, heavily anti-western regime came into being. Even at the time of the installation of the Shah, the CIA mentioned the likelyhood of a "blowback", which is the term they use for events which seriously compromise their goals for a particular area.)

So seriously, it's time to stop defeninding Israel as if they're some sacred cow, because quite honestly it's not doing anyone any favours. In fact, those who do are probably doing themselves a major disservice, and unfortunately it's a price that everyone will have to pay.

Edit : btw, Marine1, you totally ignored my last post where I quoted your reponse to me. I take this to mean that you concede the point and you admit that it is foolish to claim that any state as a "right" to exist.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in western countries and the alleged attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and being cynically used.

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is Communist in nature
Click to expand...


In the United States, the term is sometimes used as a pejorative against political liberals, radicals, and others among left-wing politics. The tone implies that the speaker thinks the "useful idiot" is ignorant of the facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support. The term gained increased use after the publication of conservative columnist Mona Charen's 2003 book Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First.[6]

The term is also sometimes used by anarchists and other radicals to describe groups and individuals whose ideology is alleged to be excessively deferential to a government or authoritarian political movement.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has also been used by some commentators to describe individuals said to take a softer line against Islamism and terrorism. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:[7]

“ Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots. ”

Similarly, Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno wrote:[8]

“ Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X