Rockets Hit Isreial

[Incongruous]

Not true. The Israelis don't just blindly fire in the general direction of Palestine and hope that they kill somebody. They are taking specific aim at targets that they believe represent a real threat to their security.

The Arabs, on the other hand, are just blindly firing rockets in the general direction of Israel, hoping that they will kill a Jew or three, whether or not those particular Jews happen to represent a specific threat to them.

You seem to be ignoring that very important difference.

Take a step back and breath deeply, honourable Dâriûsh. I think that that's about the closest I have ever seen you come to ad hominem.

I put the word "innocent" in quotations because I believe that ever since the Palestinians elected a known terrorist organization with genocide as its stated goal as their legitimate government, they have lost any moral high-ground that they might ever have been able to cling to.


Nothing incorrect in that statement.

Lets get some fact into the conversation here.
You denounce Palestinians for electing to power men who say they would commit genocide. Isrealis have leected men into power who have commited genocide. Ever heard of Ariel sharrons little dealing with the Phalangists in Lebbenon? I'd advise you to make backround checks before making satments like that.

In 1982 Begin launched a bloody attack on Lebanon, which resulted in the deaths of over eighteen thousand people mostly Plastinian refugees. O the assualt on civilians including the continuous bombing of Beirut and the saturation bombing of all major Plestinian refugee cams in southern Lebanon, Begin said, " Not for one moment would I have any doubt that the civilian population deserves punshment". He describedthe Palestinians as two legged beasts. As for the massacare in the Sabra and Chatila camps in Beirut, for which the Isrealis were held responsible, Begin dismissed this Shame as the anti-semetism of "goyim", a pejorative term for gentiles.

In 1953, Sharon commanded Unit 101 of the Isreali army, whose 'mission' it was to carry out 'special reprisals across the state's borders. On the night of October 14, Sharon laid siege to the village of Qibya. His orders From general command were to 'attack the village and temporarily hold and occupy it, carry out destruction and maximum killing, in order to drive out the inhabitants of the village from their homes.' He passed this on to his men with these words "Objective to attack the village of Kibiya [sic], occupy it and cause maximal damage to life and property, signed Major Ariel Sharon."

In June1982, General Sharon, now defence minister, ordered the invsion of Lebanon to destroy "the terrorist infastructure" of the PLO, which was based in Beirut. This was a terrible, murderous episode. Laying siege to Muslim west Beirut, the Isrealis cut off water, eletricity and food supplies and bombed the city, using phosphorus shells and American-supplied cluster bombs in the warren of streets, During the first two weeks, an estimated fourteen thousand Palestinians and Lebanese were killed and twenty thousand wounded, the vast majority of these civilians. According to UNICEF, ten children were killed for every Palastinian fighter. By Septemer, The PLO had decided to evacuate Beirut and, overseen by international forces, thousands of Palastinians baorded ships that would take them to other Arab countries, while their women and children remained behind. With the evacuation complete Sharone claimed "2000" terrorists" remained in the refugee camps; offering no eveidence, he oredered the "encircling and sealing" of Sabra and Chatila camps. On September 16, he allowed the Phalngists who were fascists trained. armed and paid by Isreal and with a history of britality and hatred of Palestinian, into these two camps. They systematically murdered the lederly, women and childre.

The massacare took just under forty hours. The Phalangists were in constant communication with the Isrealis, who could see into the camps and fired flares to light the way for their clients'.

The UN called the massacares "an act of genocide". The Isreali Commision of Inquiry, could offer no evidence that a single terrorist was present in the camps.

The plain, shocking truth.

[Adrian II]

The plain, shocking truth.

Yes, it is. Except for the term genocide, which was adopted by the General Assembly but not by the Security Council. Israel has committed war crimes more than once, including during the invasion of Lebanon, and the relevant 1982 SC Resolution (521) condemns 'the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut', a phrase that comes perilously close to the definition of war crime.

The real issue is: what do we do if all sides in a war or civil conflict intentionally commit atrocities? Do we condemn only one party and not the other(s)? And is such condemnation conducive to a peaceful arrangement that prevents further atrocities - an arrangement that ideally should have a higher priority than the establishment of past crimes?

[Incongruous]

No I was merley correcting Goofball's comments.
Yes I also believe that Isreal is the part who need to give the most. They constantly us state terrorism, and have a seemingly unquestioned support of the West.
The Palestinians have nothing.
As far as I can see, if Isreal's actions are not considered terrorism then niether can those of Hamas and IJ.

[Adrian II]

No I was merely correcting Goofball's comments.

I understand.

But I feel we should skip the 'bulldozer versus rocket' equation and aim for the larger picture. I deplore the fact that modern sensitivity demands instant gratification, including instant justice for every perceived wrong at every bloody twist in world events: Darfur, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq.

We cry genocide and demand: do something!

As if 'doing something' in world politics were somehow the global equivalent of filing a lawsuit for negligence against the local deli in Stuebenville, Ohio, or against the neighbourhood council of De Baarsjes, Amsterdam, for breach of contract.

[Incongruous]

I understand.

But I feel we should skip the 'bulldozer versus rocket' equation and aim for the larger picture. I deplore the fact that modern sensitivity demands instant gratification, including instant justice for every perceived wrong at every bloody twist in world events: Darfur, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq.

We cry genocide and demand: do something!

As if 'doing something' in world politics were somehow the global equivalent of filing a lawsuit for negligence against the local deli in Stuebenville, Ohio, or against the neighbourhood council of De Baarsjes, Amsterdam, for breach of contract.

I don't think this can be a case of "looking at the global picture"
I think what we can make it a case of is continued Isreali and Western incompotence in the area. It seems that because of Isreal's bombings recently that Lebanons government will suffer. Isreal is, knowingly creating more strife in the region. It seems that they must, they need to destabilise the region, for what reason? I have no idea, but I believe such a query is valid. I also believe that the USA has to stop its blind support for one of the biggest bullies in the world. It is slighty irrelevant but alot of people I know here in NZ view Isreal as ab evil country. I don\t agree because a country can never be evil. There are people in Isreal (families of suicide bombing victim) who really want Isreal to stop it's state terrorism. Yet they are scorned by the general populace. Yes I am pro-pelestinian, but I am also pro-peace. But at the moment I believe Isreal is the one who has to give more. This wall they have built has split families, fathers from sons and brithers from sisters. They know, they must without any doubt that this will create more desperation (imagine living in a disease infested refugee camp you're entire life, while you're grandfather tells you of you're families old far, just a few miles that way) more bombings.

Jerusaleam is also a problem, I don't think Isreal should have it, it should be an international city.

The west always seems to cry "murder!" yet we soon get bored of the same people dying and nothing happens. Not enough money in it for governments I suppose. The UN deosn't have a leg to stand on, because it's members (I am pointing a big finger at the US government) constantly destroy what integrity it could have.

As I said I believe it's time the west pulled in the reigns upon Isreal and tell them to have a look at how Britain dealt with the IRA.
They're are the ones with an infastructure, they should lead the way.

[Adrian II]

As I said I believe it's time the west pulled in the reigns upon Isreal and tell them to have a look at how Britain dealt with the IRA. They're are the ones with an infastructure, they should lead the way.

Agreed. Everyone can come up with issues that might complicate such a scenario and we all know that it won't be easy yadda yadda, but this should be the basic thrust of a forward-looking strategy.

[Pannonian]

As I said I believe it's time the west pulled in the reigns upon Isreal and tell them to have a look at how Britain dealt with the IRA.
They're are the ones with an infastructure, they should lead the way.

In the past, I've pointed to similarities between the situations in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine, and have always been told it was completely different and not at all comparable. Even when I pointed to extremely similar developments, and that various Palestinian factions have asked the IRA for advice as recently as this year, I was still told, it's completely different and not at all comparable.

Well, Britain managed to solve its problem in Northern Ireland, and that's all that matters to me. If the Israelis (not the Palestinians, they've been willing to listen to outsiders) want to go about it their own way and prolong the troubles for another 50 years, that's their own business. I only wish my own government will stop thinking it can do good by stepping in. As I've said before, cut off all contact with Israel and Palestine, and let them fight it out for as long as they want. Why should it matter to us if Israelis and Palestinians decide to kill each other, as long as they keep their dispute to themselves?

[Watchman]

Because that little festering case is around the single biggest motivator for any and all militant wonks the Muslim world might spawn ? Spin-offs thus far include avid anti-Semitism (or is that -Jewism, I thought Arabs were a Semitic people too?) among Muslims in general and Arabs in particular and such pleasant gems as aircraft hijacking...

[Pannonian]

The real issue is: what do we do if all sides in a war or civil conflict intentionally commit atrocities? Do we condemn only one party and not the other(s)? And is such condemnation conducive to a peaceful arrangement that prevents further atrocities - an arrangement that ideally should have a higher priority than the establishment of past crimes?

Seal them off from the outside world and let them kill each other as much as they want. What is there in Israel and Palestine that is of interest to us anyway? Why does it matter to us if they can't stand each others' company, as long as they don't take their dispute outside their combined borders?