Israel attack Liban

[x-dANGEr]

History is the reason of future?

I will forget about the past, for that will drive us into mazes never ending.

[Redleg]

So you take what you like from one source and add it to what you like from the other?

Nope I use both to attempt to sort out the facts from the baised reporting.

You seem to confuse the "way" you answer with "what" you answer to.

Not at all - however it seems that it confuses you.

But he can't force them on others. Just like you did right now: "Again you are incorrect", well I don't believe I am.

Who is forcing whom. Opinion's are just statements. You can believe you are correct even when the facts show otherwise. This is how extremists get their cannon fodder and their support.

Oohh.. Maybe that is your problem (Basically, most "arabic" news sites in English are quite briefed, and even sometimes mistaked..)

This is why I use multiple sources. One can sort out what is fact by using multiple sources to see which parts of the story is consistent. Brief reports often contain more factual information. The longer the report the more baised the story becomes. Or in the case of the Middle-East the more propaganda it contains. This is true of Israel and this is true for Palenstine sources.

How many "political concession"-s have been made?

Research the answer yourself - it might enlighten you to your own baised views and the false information that has been feed to you by the supporters of terrorism.

Hmm no, you're incorrect (Using your own game against ya ).

Are you now attempting to compound your error by claiming you did not state this - or are you guilty of history revision?

Those in Europe fought mainly for cash! The resistance organisations fight for freedom?

Nah.. You're incorrect. (Funny, I'm starting to like this!)

Are you attempting to state that emotional appeal is not its own refutation? You might want to check out what an emotional appeal arguement is all about.

Well, if you give the Palestinian the weapons you once gave to Israel (Including the Nukes), that'd be cool with me.

Who is to give the Palestinian's weapons? Again who aided Israel in developing Nuclear Weapons? You might want to think before responding.

[x-dANGEr]

Not at all - however it seems that it confuses you.

Incorrect.

Who is forcing whom. Opinion's are just statements. You can believe you are correct even when the facts show otherwise. This is how extremists get their cannon fodder and their support.

"You can believe you are correct.."

This is why I use multiple sources. One can sort out what is fact by using multiple sources to see which parts of the story is consistent. Brief reports often contain more factual information. The longer the report the more baised the story becomes. Or in the case of the Middle-East the more propaganda it contains. This is true of Israel and this is true for Palenstine sources.

I just want to bring in an example, and you tell me what's biased and what is not:

The west says (Some link by an ORG-er have been given) that the Israeli Destroyer was attacked by a no-pilot airplane dozened with explosives (To not generalise, I'd say some sources), while the sources I get my info from say it was attacked by a direct rocket attack.. Now, who's right? (Of course the second one, since I think it would easily counter the first one)

Research the answer yourself - it might enlighten you to your own baised views and the false information that has been feed to you by the supporters of terrorism.

No need to.. I am sure it would be minimum.

Are you now attempting to compound your error by claiming you did not state this - or are you guilty of history revision?

I'm just trying to state my opinion that you're wrong (In saying that my sentence/definition was utterly wrong). If you go back to hose I defined it, I said "terrorist organisation".. Now if you consider the French Resistance a terrorist organistaion, that doesn't mean a flaw in my definition, but a flaw in yours.

Are you attempting to state that emotional appeal is not its own refutation? You might want to check out what an emotional appeal arguement is all about.

I'm just trying to state my opinion that you're wrong (You like to talk bla bla a lot).

Again who aided Israel in developing Nuclear Weapons? You might want to think before responding.

The UK.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739352.html
Of course this won't happen and if it does it will have the same impact as baking a turd, covering it with icing, and calling it a cake.
So in the Sudan, millions died and Kofi doesn't do diddly, but Israel finally takes the fight to the enemy and Kofi wants to stop it. Typical UN. So should the UN go in or should it do what it does best; talk endlessly until both sides fall asleep because of Kofi's hypnotizing monotone rhetoric?

[Redleg]

Incorrect.

Copying is the best form of flattery - but denying you were confused is a little late.

"You can believe you are correct.."

So your attempting to state that the extremists don't use information and propaganda to recruit their cannon fodder? You might want to research some more then.

I just want to bring in an example, and you tell me what's biased and what is not:

The west says (Some link by an ORG-er have been given) that the Israeli Destroyer was attacked by a no-pilot airplane dozened with explosives (To not generalise, I'd say some sources), while the sources I get my info from say it was attacked by a direct rocket attack.. Now, who's right? (Of course the second one, since I think it would easily counter the first one)

Your behind, Israeli intelligence along with several western intelligence agnecies are claiming an anti-ship missile from Iran was used. This could go with the direct rocket attack scenerio that is being mentioned by Hezabollah sources.

No need to.. I am sure it would be minimum.

Then you must also concur that Israeli sources contain a minimum of propaganda and disinformation.

Both sides use false information all the time to sway others to their side of the arguement.

I'm just trying to state my opinion that you're wrong (In saying that my sentence/definition was utterly wrong). If you go back to hose I defined it, I said "terrorist organisation".. Now if you consider the French Resistance a terrorist organistaion, that doesn't mean a flaw in my definition, but a flaw in yours.

Nice try but not good enough - quibbling over your failure is just that.

I'm just trying to state my opinion that you're wrong (You like to talk bla bla a lot).

So you agree your use of heavy emotional appeal arguements are their own refutation?

The UK.

From FAS. Pprobably the best source for information on any Nation's Nuclear Weapons program available on the Web, and about as neutral as you can get toward nations - this group detests nuclear weapons - they have absolutely no agenda to report false information concerning nations.

On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.

Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons,(LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.

Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France's international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.

At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed - French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

So again attempting to blame the UK shows that your arguement is incorrect.

[x-dANGEr]

You seem to see a little bit beyond words, even when I put nothing there.

Copying is the best form of flattery - but denying you were confused is a little late.

Not really. What was this point about again?

So your attempting to state that the extremists don't use information and propaganda to recruit their cannon fodder? You might want to research some more then.

No I don't. But you were claiming that I am a part of that cannon fodder, which I don't agree too.

Your behind, Israeli intelligence along with several western intelligence agnecies are claiming an anti-ship missile from Iran was used. This could go with the direct rocket attack scenerio that is being mentioned by Hezabollah sources.

Oh, the Iran thing lol.. I take it you don't believe them do you? Since you say "claiming".. Good.

Then you must also concur that Israeli sources contain a minimum of propaganda and disinformation.

No I musn't. I'm talking about the trades, not their creditibility (Israel)

Nice try but not good enough - quibbling over your failure is just that.

You're incorrect. I tried to simplfy it so you can make out for your understanding failure.

So you agree your use of heavy emotional appeal arguements are their own refutation?

No I don't. (I don't know what "refutation" means)

From FAS. Pprobably the best source for information on any Nation's Nuclear Weapons program available on the Web, and about as neutral as you can get toward nations - this group detests nuclear weapons - they have absolutely no agenda to report false information concerning nations.

I didn't know for sure who was it..

At any cost, I stand corrected. But, this still poses an asnwer to you:

Again who aided Israel in developing Nuclear Weapons?

[Husar]

They should move into Lebanon, Sudan and Palestine as well.
And they should not forget to take real ammunition with them.
Then they should help to remove foreign influence from Lebanon, make Palestine it´s own state, tell Israel to give them water, release the prisoners and tell the terrorists to stop attacks. In sudan they should simply, erm, kill all bad guys [new process, widen Monkeysphere.......done] erm, I mean they should kill the really bad guys and help the children soldiers.
Once that is complete, other rebuilding steps can be taken in africa and the Middle East.
So much about Husi´s guide to world peace.

An important point is also the opinion of the people of the country you send those troops to. If those people didn´t suffer enough, there is some chance they might see the foreign soldiers as occupants. Especially the middle east didn´t really like foreign soldiers so far. We might see a UN vs rebels war in Lebanon, only if the UN takes real ammunition though.

[Redleg]

You seem to see a little bit beyond words, even when I put nothing there.

Maybe, maybe not - but be careful of making such claims when your just as guilty of doing such.

Not really. What was this point about again?

Another quibble

No I don't. But you were claiming that I am a part of that cannon fodder, which I don't agree too.

Did I make such a claim?

or did you assume that I was speaking directly of you?

Oh, the Iran thing lol.. I take it you don't believe them do you? Since you say "claiming".. Good.

Until the evidence is confirmed its only a claim. The explosive residue will determine if the missile was from Iran or if it was just a rocket made by Hezabollah.

Now there is evidence the missiles being used to strike Haifa are of Iran design and manafacture. Both by the claims of Hezabolla itself - they released that they were firing Raad 1, Raad 2, and Raad 3. The picture shown in the newscaste is one that looks very similiar to the Shinian 1 (Spelling) missile of Iran design and manafacture.

No I musn't. I'm talking about the trades, not their creditibility (Israel)

Are you attempting to change what you stated to mean something else, because you misunderstood my comment? The issue that I was mentioning in that comment was information, not just trades.

You're incorrect. I tried to simplfy it so you can make out for your understanding failure.

A quibble it is indeed - the error was yours and attempts to change it are only quibbles. You made an attempt at rivisioning history and you were called on it. Any explanation otherwise is only a quibble, and flys in the face of what you stated.

No I don't. (I don't know what "refutation" means)

Then look it up -

I didn't know for sure who was it..

That is a common mistake that you are making in this thread - emotional appeal is its own refutation.

At any cost, I stand corrected. But, this still poses an asnwer to you:

FAS provides that answer - if you stand corrected by the document that it was not the UK, you should of seen where FAS provides the answer concerning the nation that provided the base assistance for Israel's development of nuclear weapons. It also clearly states what nation failed to request any enforcement concerning Israel's violation of the Non Profliation Agreements.

I am not going to educate you on the nation - but I will point you in the correct direction by refering you to the FAS website once again. If I just tell you, you will not discover for yourself that you have fallen victim to false information and propaganda of both sides.

[x-dANGEr]

Maybe, maybe not - but be careful of making such claims when your just as guilty of doing such.

You claim that all my arguments are based on emmotional appeal, and then you say I see beyond words.. Something's wrong here..

Did I make such a claim?

or did you assume that I was speaking directly of you?

Weren't you?

Research the answer yourself - it might enlighten you to your own baised views and the false information that has been feed to you by the supporters of terrorism.

Until the evidence is confirmed its only a claim. The explosive residue will determine if the missile was from Iran or if it was just a rocket made by Hezabollah.

Now there is evidence the missiles being used to strike Haifa are of Iran design and manafacture. Both by the claims of Hezabolla itself - they released that they were firing Raad 1, Raad 2, and Raad 3. The picture shown in the newscaste is one that looks very similiar to the Shinian 1 (Spelling) missile of Iran design and manafacture.

How do you define manufacture?

Are you attempting to change what you stated to mean something else, because you misunderstood my comment? The issue that I was mentioning in that comment was information, not just trades.

What I stated is only about the captives' trades. You started "quibbling" and getting us far from the point.

A quibble it is indeed - the error was yours and attempts to change it are only quibbles. You made an attempt at rivisioning history and you were called on it. Any explanation otherwise is only a quibble, and flys in the face of what you stated.

No error was mine. IN the original definition I gave to it, I said "terrorizing organisations", and I don't think that applies to any resistance.

Then look it up

I just did.

emotional appeal is its own refutation.

I'm not claiming that I do not agree to this description of my arguments, I simply don't agree.

FAS provides that answer - if you stand corrected by the document that it was not the UK, you should of seen where FAS provides the answer concerning the nation that provided the base assistance for Israel's development of nuclear weapons. It also clearly states what nation failed to request any enforcement concerning Israel's violation of the Non Profliation Agreements.

I am not going to educate you on the nation - but I will point you in the correct direction by refering you to the FAS website once again. If I just tell you, you will not discover for yourself that you have fallen victim to false information and propaganda of both sides.

Through what I read, I found nothing. Though, I know that a whole lot of Arabic countries requested the Israel be enforced concerning it's violation of the agreement. Some 3-4 years ago.

[cunobelinus]

Do people believe this attack on liban is the start of a bigger war or just a small war that should sizzle out .

[x-dANGEr]

It can go either way..

[Somebody Else]

Situation seems quite simple to me. Disregarding any issues about the foundation of each state - all past history now - the current generation are only carping on about it due to prejudices handed down by their forefathers. This is a conflict between, broadly speaking, a positive organisation, and a negative one. One seeks to maintain it's own state, even willing to concede territory in order to promote peace. The other dedicated to the destruction of this state.

Just because one side is weaker, doesn't preclude it's ability to be an aggressor. Kind of like short people.

Thinking back in history (I am an historian after all). There are a couple of instances where a powerful nation successfully dealt with insurgency, and generated lasting peace (for at least a couple of generations). You aren't going to like the methods though. First example: France, or rather, Gaul. Caesar 'pacified' Gaul Roman style - lots of killing, cutting off of hands etc. and then encouraging assimiliation with Roman culture. The result? A province that was peaceful, contributed to Roman society, culture and government for several hundred years. Second example, India. After the mutiny, we were brutal. Granted, the Indians later had a revolution - a couple of hundred years later, but in a civilised manner - peacefully and progressing into the largest democracy in the world.

Now, I'm not saying that the Israelis should lay waste to all and sundry; but then, nor should they roll over and take it.

So, quite clearly, my opinion lies in supporting the Israeli state - quite possibly influenced by my exasperation with what seems to be a vast horde of nihilists hiding behind a book.

[Redleg]

You claim that all my arguments are based on emmotional appeal, and then you say I see beyond words.. Something's wrong here..

Yep - emotional appeal.

Weren't you?

Which one? It will help you understand what I was actually saying.

How do you define manufacture?

Exactly the way it is defined in Websters.

What I stated is only about the captives' trades. You started "quibbling" and getting us far from the point.

So showing you that there was trades, no trades, and concession releases seem to fall out the window because you wish to maintain the illusion and baised that states there is never a release of prisoners without a trade.

Does someone have a problem reviewing information outside of their own paridiagms(SP)?

No error was mine. IN the original definition I gave to it, I said "terrorizing organisations", and I don't think that applies to any resistance.

So I am indeed correct your orginial statement about the the West fighting only for cash was indeed false. To remind us both of your statement

Those in Europe fought mainly for cash! The resistance organisations fight for freedom?

I just did.

Good

I'm not claiming that I do not agree to this description of my arguments, I simply don't agree.

Emotional appeal is its own refutation.

Through what I read, I found nothing. Though, I know that a whole lot of Arabic countries requested the Israel be enforced concerning it's violation of the agreement. Some 3-4 years ago.

France supplied the Technology and even some of the scientists and material in developing Israel's nuclear generators. Israel developed their own nuclear weapons from this start. Most likely with the knowledge that one has been developed before enabled them to speed up their own ability to make nuclear weapons. The United States failed to make any waves about Israel's possible development of nuclear weapons when the US first learned of the violations by Israel back in the 1960s and into the 1970's. This is all contained in the FAS document and yes even the quote alreadly provided in this thread.

[yesdachi]

Do people believe this attack on liban is the start of a bigger war or just a small war that should sizzle out .

It is already part of a larger war, the war on terrorism. No sizzle out in sight.

[Pannonian]

Situation seems quite simple to me. Disregarding any issues about the foundation of each state - all past history now - the current generation are only carping on about it due to prejudices handed down by their forefathers. This is a conflict between, broadly speaking, a positive organisation, and a negative one. One seeks to maintain it's own state, even willing to concede territory in order to promote peace. The other dedicated to the destruction of this state.

Just because one side is weaker, doesn't preclude it's ability to be an aggressor. Kind of like short people.

Thinking back in history (I am an historian after all). There are a couple of instances where a powerful nation successfully dealt with insurgency, and generated lasting peace (for at least a couple of generations). You aren't going to like the methods though. First example: France, or rather, Gaul. Caesar 'pacified' Gaul Roman style - lots of killing, cutting off of hands etc. and then encouraging assimiliation with Roman culture. The result? A province that was peaceful, contributed to Roman society, culture and government for several hundred years. Second example, India. After the mutiny, we were brutal. Granted, the Indians later had a revolution - a couple of hundred years later, but in a civilised manner - peacefully and progressing into the largest democracy in the world.

You might want to look at a more recent example closer to home, Northern Ireland.

Now, I'm not saying that the Israelis should lay waste to all and sundry; but then, nor should they roll over and take it.

So, quite clearly, my opinion lies in supporting the Israeli state - quite possibly influenced by my exasperation with what seems to be a vast horde of nihilists hiding behind a book.

The main Palestinian terror groups are secular. The only book they're hding behind is the latest A-Z of Israel/Palestine (latest because of the constant creep of Israeli settlements).

It's funny how people talk of kidnapping Israeli soldiers as an act of war, but they ignore the main cause of war through history, land disputes. We fought a war against Argentina when they claimed a piece of British land as their own. IIRC we weren't the aggressors.

[Somebody Else]

You might want to look at a more recent example closer to home, Northern Ireland.

Not quite the same. We didn't say, for example, raze entire towns and enslave all the women and children having executed all the men.

A limited approach does not work. Kind of like wind on a fire - a strong wind on a weak flame blows it out. But blow too softly, or too late, and embers will become a fire, a fire will become a firestorm.

The main Palestinian terror groups are secular. The only book they're hding behind is the latest A-Z of Israel/Palestine (latest because of the constant creep of Israeli settlements).

It's funny how people talk of kidnapping Israeli soldiers as an act of war, but they ignore the main cause of war through history, land disputes. We fought a war against Argentina when they claimed a piece of British land as their own. IIRC we weren't the aggressors.

Here I'll admit, I was being rather general - and openly admitting a slight prejudice - I don't know - there's three major conflicts going on at the moment, all with a common factor.

Yes, human greed is the most common cause for aggression - in all walks of life. But religion is, for some, a very convenient excuse.

[Tribesman]

Not quite the same. We didn't say, for example, raze entire towns and enslave all the women and children having executed all the men.

Not during the recent episode , but they certainly did previously . Though of course they didn't kill all the men , they would just decide what proportion of a towns male inhabitants would be executed .
Now what is the name of the island where they shipped people off to work the plantations ?
Also you might want to rethink your comments about India , they are contrary to fact , or do you find the slaughter of millions and still ongoing killing a civilised peaceful manner .

(I am an historian after all)
Really ????? perhaps you should study a little harder .
You can start by finding out which proportions of male inhabitants of which towns/cities were chosen to be executed ,then which was the last town to be razed (which isn't that long ago actually ) . Then can you find the name of the carribean island the Irish were sent to .
History is fun isn't it , its good to learn .

[Somebody Else]

B](I am an historian after all)[/B]
Really ????? perhaps you should study a little harder .
You can start by finding out which proportions of male inhabitants of which towns/cities were chosen to be executed ,then which was the last town to be razed (which isn't that long ago actually ) . Then can you find the name of the carribean island the Irish were sent to .
History is fun isn't it , its good to learn .

Ancient historian. The Irish, quite frankly, are of little interest to me. If you want examples in the Roman empire or Empire, do ask. As a taster, the Nervii in Gaul, (and to prove that the area can live peacefully) Jerusalem after Titus.

[Tribesman]

Thats OK Somebody, just thought I would point out that you were not using very good examples with Ireland and India .
So now then , the Romans , whatever happened to them ?
I wonder if in a few millenia historians will be looking at the wall to in the Middle east that is supposed to keep the barbarians at bay and saying "what a wonderful feat of engineering" ?

[Somebody Else]

The Romans had an empire that lasted 500 years (Augustus onwards). Or, if you want, there were people who called themselves Roman for 2000 years (Founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople).

They are the basis of our legal system. Their military organisational and training techniques provide inspiration centuries after their demise.

I just hope in a few millenia historians have a wall to look at, because the way things seem to be going at the moment, they'll have a the relics of a novel form of glass production to look at.

[Tribesman]

Just wondering Somebody , since you refer to peace after Titus , you know kill them enslave them and destroy the area .
How is it that they came back on a far wider scale and depopulated large parts of the roman empire by slaughtering roman citizens , didn't they get the message ?

And they rose up again after that didn't they .

Some people never learn do they .
Apparently they are back again now and none too happy at the moment as it happens.

Funny thing that genocide isn't it , you have to do it right and make sure you get all of them . If not then you are only building problems for the future .


I just hope in a few millenia historians have a wall to look at, because the way things seem to be going at the moment, they'll have a the relics of a novel form of glass production to look at.
Hopefully saner heads will prevail .

[Somebody Else]

Gotta love the good old pax Romana.

N.B. Up until Constantine, religion was not generally an issue under Roman rule (Except the druids... nasty seditious human-sacrificing people that they were. The human sacrifice was distasteful - but their propensity for spreading dissent was the main reason the Romans went to such lengths to crush them)

Also, try as I might, I can't think of any occasion when Judean Zeolots embarked on an empire-wide slaughter of Roman citizens... I will give you that there were 2 more revolts after Titus (well, one set of riots and a major revolt). '580,000 Jews (mass civilian casualties), 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.' in Bar Kokhba’s revolt, According to Cassius Dio via Wikipedia. They were not exterminated, but nor were they let off lightly. I don't see any mention of a Jewish revolt after that...

Basically, what I'm saying, is that people are thick. And sometimes, something heavy is required to hammer the message home. But as long as they feel that they can act with impunity, people will. Why co-operate when you don't have to? Much like training an animal, people as a whole need to be forced to behave in a certain way before they do so voluntarily.

Gods I despise the human race.

[Tribesman]

Also, try as I might, I can't think of any occasion when Judean Zeolots embarked on an empire-wide slaughter of Roman citizens...
I didn't say empire wide , it just reached from modern Iraq all the way across to modern Libya , oh and a little hop across the sea to Cyprus .
See .....wider-scale .
It was the second one not the Star one .

[Pannonian]

You might want to look at a more recent example closer to home, Northern Ireland.

Not quite the same. We didn't say, for example, raze entire towns and enslave all the women and children having executed all the men.

Precisely. Northern Ireland shows that defeating insurgencies (and the Provisional IRA were among the best) is possible without using extreme brutality. It takes a lot of patience and tolerance (and money), but it's possible. In the long run, it's probably cheaper than the half and half solution favoured by moralists.

A limited approach does not work. Kind of like wind on a fire - a strong wind on a weak flame blows it out. But blow too softly, or too late, and embers will become a fire, a fire will become a firestorm.

A poor analogy, you might as well use a direct description. As Mao Zedong and other experts on the matter have recognised, an insurgency lives among its people. People are drawn to the idea of the insurgency. Therefore defeating the insurgency involves either extinguishing the idea or the people who are drawn to it. Extinguishing the people means depopulating the danger area, either killing, moving or otherwise suppressing the relevant part of the population - genocide or the threat of is good if you choose this option. Extinguishing the idea means either suppressing the idea, feasible before modern communications but not now, or providing an alternative, which is what the British did in Northern Ireland.

You can even mix and match to your taste, as they are not mutually exclusive, although one does tend to act against the other. However, forever threatening the population while not giving them any realistic alternative definitely doesn't work.

Here I'll admit, I was being rather general - and openly admitting a slight prejudice - I don't know - there's three major conflicts going on at the moment, all with a common factor.

Yes, human greed is the most common cause for aggression - in all walks of life. But religion is, for some, a very convenient excuse.

The basic cause of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the non-existence of a viable Palestine, and the unlife of Palestinians. The British solved Northern Ireland by integrating the population into the British mainstream, thereby making insurgency much less attractive, giving the insurgents a realistic political alternative to violence, and accepting the moral contradictions of a war in name and peace in reality.

FWIW, Sinn Fein still aims to drive the British out of the island of Ireland, but now do so via exclusively political means, and they are more concerned with other matters now they are in government in many councils across Northern Ireland. If the Israelis were smart and less concerned with macho posturing, they would seek to rehabilitate Hamas in this manner. History shows the Israelis, like their American sponsors, to be too bound by moral opposites to do anything of the sort.

[Somebody Else]

The non-life of the Palestinians. As I said earlier, the current generation is not one that was around when there was a state of Palestine. They should move on.

And if this seems cavalier, and that the virtue of having ancestors that once lived in a place entails a right to live there regardless of later claims grants the Palestinians the right to live there. Well, then. Sorry, but the Israelis got there first. Up until 1900 years ago or so. When they were ejected by the superpower of the time, as the Palestinians were ejected by the superpower of their time. But then, following that logic, the USA should be evacuated by all but the native americans. The Scots should go back to Ireland. Non-aboriginals should leave Australia. Etc. etc.

This is a farcical assumption.

Fact is, Israel is a sovereign state, currently extant, recognised as such by the rest of the world. Therefore it has every right to defend itself against attacks upon it's sovereignity - whether they be forceful or more insidious.

Hezbollah et al strike me as something akin to the petulant little child lashing out in a temper tantrum because it doesn't get it's way.

Anyway - we seemed to be getting a little off topic somewhere along the line.

[Pannonian]

The non-life of the Palestinians. As I said earlier, the current generation is not one that was around when there was a state of Palestine. They should move on.

There is a state of Palestine. This state is guaranteed by the UN, and is even recognised by Israel. It held free elections recently, and in a surprise result (not least to the victors) elected a Hamas government.

And if this seems cavalier, and that the virtue of having ancestors that once lived in a place entails a right to live there regardless of later claims grants the Palestinians the right to live there. Well, then. Sorry, but the Israelis got there first. Up until 1900 years ago or so. When they were ejected by the superpower of the time, as the Palestinians were ejected by the superpower of their time. But then, following that logic, the USA should be evacuated by all but the native americans. The Scots should go back to Ireland. Non-aboriginals should leave Australia. Etc. etc.

This is a farcical assumption.

Fact is, Israel is a sovereign state, currently extant, recognised as such by the rest of the world. Therefore it has every right to defend itself against attacks upon it's sovereignity - whether they be forceful or more insidious.

Palestine also claims that right, but do not have the military or diplomatic muscle to back it up. The UN defined the borders of Israel and Palestine, but war has eaten into that. The PLO recognised that fact, and renegotiated the borders. Israel continues to eat into Palestinian territory by building new settlements and thus bringing more Palestinian territory under Israeli authority, but the west does not regard this as an act of war. More recently, Israel has built a wall which crosses and encloses land that even Israel recognises as Palestinian, but once again the west does not regard this as an act of war. Thatcher sent an expedition to the Falklands when the Argies tried something similar.

Hezbollah et al strike me as something akin to the petulant little child lashing out in a temper tantrum because it doesn't get it's way.

Anyway - we seemed to be getting a little off topic somewhere along the line.

Hezbollah and other anti-Israel groups gain support from the sore that is Israel-Palestine. When talking about the middle east, the Palestinian problem is always on-topic. It is such an obvious injustice, the flourescent pink elephant in the middle of the room, that all Muslims have to do is point and all our illusions of an ethical foreign policy is gone. Whatever their underlying reasons for doing so (and we don't know what they are), they weren't slow to link their cause to that of the Palestinians.

Personally I don't care for any of those in the region. It would be better if the EU sealed off the region, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and other relevant countries. No travel, no trade, no aid. Ban travel to those areas. If anyone goes there via other countries, bar them from returning to the EU. If anyone manages to return to the EU after having been to those areas, revoke their EU citizenship and deport them. If these middle easterners don't want to listen to us, there is no reason to continue to belabour them with our opinions. And if they insist on continuing this war, then they should at least keep us out of it. And if they want to contribute to this war, then we don't want them here causing trouble. Let them do whatever they want, it's none of our business. And we should do our utmost to keep it from being our business, until they tire of fighting. If they want our advice again there is always the UN in New York. Until then, good bye and good riddance to these troublemakers.

[Somebody Else]

It would please me greatly to seal them all off in some room somewhere to sort it out on their own. However, they happen to be sitting on one of the most interesting pieces of land in the world. (And I'm pretty thankful I managed to visit between intifadahs).

As for Israel continuing to encroach on Palestinian land, one of the first acts of the current head of state was to withdraw from perceived Palestinian territory - of course, this cannot be done immediately - people cannot be moved like cattle - regardless of the past. The wall was built in order to regulate the movement of possible bombers. Do you know what it's like to live in a city where people actually jump if a car backfires? Talks never managed to stop them coming across, strikes didn't, what will?

Anyway. Regardless. What's Hezbollah's involvement pray tell? Are they a concerned third party? In which case why not act through the Lebanese government, of which they are a part, in order to put pressure on the Israelis to concede. Instead, they resort to all they understand. And kidnap. And bomb. Those aren't the acts of an organisation I can imagine anyone wanting anything to deal with.

[Pannonian]

It would please me greatly to seal them all off in some room somewhere to sort it out on their own. However, they happen to be sitting on one of the most interesting pieces of land in the world. (And I'm pretty thankful I managed to visit between intifadahs).

Then wait until it's peaceful again before visiting. One of the London bombers (the ringleader) was radicalised by a trip there, and I'm not inclined to look kindly on others who want to make that trip.

As for Israel continuing to encroach on Palestinian land, one of the first acts of the current head of state was to withdraw from perceived Palestinian territory - of course, this cannot be done immediately - people cannot be moved like cattle - regardless of the past. The wall was built in order to regulate the movement of possible bombers.

They withdrew from Gaza, but they're still on the West Bank. One solution I came up with after discussion on another forum was for the wall to be demolished, the settlers to remain, but for any settlers remaining on what is internationally recognised as Palestinian soil to cease being Israeli but to assume Palestinian citizenship with all its attendant rights and responsibilities, including paying taxes to the PA.

Israel has no legal authority over the West Bank, however you wish to argue it. These lands are internationally recognised as Palestinian. If the settlers want to claim right of habitation, then they must also accept the authority of the legal owner of that land, which is the Palestinian state. If they do not accept that authority, then they are by definition squatters. If they wish to contest that authority with force, then the are by definition invaders, and the Palestinians would be within their rights to ask the UNSC to help them eject them from their land (as happened with Kuwait in 1990).

Read this op-ed from the Hamas PM, and see how it differs from the popular (western) view of Hamas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071001108.html

Do you know what it's like to live in a city where people actually jump if a car backfires?

I grew up with the threat of IRA bombs constantly in the background. I'm a regular tube user along the lines and stations that were bombed last July (both the successful and unsuccessful attempts). I'm still slightly edgy around dark skinned people carrying backpacks on trains, especially when approaching Liverpool Street. Does that count?

Talks never managed to stop them coming across, strikes didn't, what will?

The period when Arafat and Rabin were engaged in productive talks was the most peaceful in the past couple of decades, according to Israeli accounts.

Anyway. Regardless. What's Hezbollah's involvement pray tell? Are they a concerned third party? In which case why not act through the Lebanese government, of which they are a part, in order to put pressure on the Israelis to concede. Instead, they resort to all they understand. And kidnap. And bomb. Those aren't the acts of an organisation I can imagine anyone wanting anything to deal with.

One could say the same about the IRA when they bombed Canary Wharf in their last spectacular. Did the British government send in the Harriers? Even better, they sent in Scotland Yard and activated their intelligence network. Even after Omagh we didn't respond with geometrically reciprocal violence, but treated it as a crime to be investigated by the police. Wouldn't you say the UK-IRA relationship is currently healthier than the Israel-Palestine relationship?

[Somebody Else]

Hmm... a solution I've considered in the past would be to declare the area a state solely governed by the UN - governed not by Israelis for the Jews, or Palestine for the Muslims, or... um... Outremer for the Christians - but by mankind for mankind. The same to apply to any other parts of the world where people can't seem to get their heads together. And before ya know it, we'll finally have that one-world government I've been hoping for.

But hey. Humanity is too petty to think that way.

And the difference between the IRA and these Islamic organisations is a case of scale. Whereas one has reasonable demands that can be negotiated with; The other is comprised of absolutists. The IRA's aim, I don't believe, was the annhilation of Great Britain - therefore an agreement could be reached. But how can one negotiate with someone who wants you dissolved?

Also, it's still terrible, but an attack every few days at the height of the troubles... compared to multiple daily attacks at the height of the intifadahs... Not quite the same now is it? As for the tube. Well, I'll admit, I try to avoid it myself. People stink. But you'll forgive me for being a little callous about a mere 52 deaths - when compared to this. Make no mistake, I judge 7/7 to be a terrible incident, but for that one incident (ignoring the damp squib a couple of weeks later) to be on an equal footing with what happens elsewhere? That's just a little to self-concerned.

[Pannonian]

Hmm... a solution I've considered in the past would be to declare the area a state solely governed by the UN - governed not by Israelis for the Jews, or Palestine for the Muslims, or... um... Outremer for the Christians - but by mankind for mankind. The same to apply to any other parts of the world where people can't seem to get their heads together. And before ya know it, we'll finally have that one-world government I've been hoping for.

But hey. Humanity is too petty to think that way.

And the difference between the IRA and these Islamic organisations is a case of scale. Whereas one has reasonable demands that can be negotiated with; The other is comprised of absolutists. The IRA's aim, I don't believe, was the annhilation of Great Britain - therefore an agreement could be reached. But how can one negotiate with someone who wants you dissolved?

I guess you haven't read Haniyeh's op-ed then, where he talks about 1948 issues and the need to address them using internationally accepted norms. Were you also aware that Hamas were discussing the idea of recognising the states of Israel and Palestine along 1967 lines? Fatah and Hamas prisoners came up with the idea, President Abbas threatened to call a referendum on it if Hamas did not support it, and Hamas eventually gave in (Haniyeh was supposedly part of the group that favoured it from the start). So get this clear: Hamas gave up the idea of dissolving Israel. If you've read the op-ed, you'll see that even now he talks of Israel and Palestine having equal rights as states. That's more of a concession than the IRA ever formally gave us before their disbandment last year.

Also, it's still terrible, but an attack every few days at the height of the troubles... compared to multiple daily attacks at the height of the intifadahs... Not quite the same now is it? As for the tube. Well, I'll admit, I try to avoid it myself. People stink. But you'll forgive me for being a little callous about a mere 52 deaths - when compared to this. Make no mistake, I judge 7/7 to be a terrible incident, but for that one incident (ignoring the damp squib a couple of weeks later) to be on an equal footing with what happens elsewhere? That's just a little to self-concerned.

As opposed to your good self in the north where Muslim-committed massacres are two-a-penny.

If you want to talk about body counts, note that the number of Palestinians killed by the IDF amount to at least 5 times the number of Israelis killed by Hamas and other terrorist groups. That's ignoring deaths due to deprivation caused by destruction of civil infrastructure. In the latest incidents, 16 Israelis have been killed so far (note the precise number), while 200-odd Palestinians have been killed (note the rough number, blurred by the scale). Typically if Israeli death totals are counted in 2 figures, Palestinian death totals in the same period are counted in 3 figures.