Israel...the awaken lion [merged]
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:38 PM
Hell, the Jews took that land from someone in the first place and are proud of it (read the Bible). Who cares who was their first? I think all that matters is who's in power currently. What are we supposed to somehow find the orignal occupants of a land and give it to them?
Arguments about people being militant against another militant people as being a bad and justifying certain actions aren't logical. After all, the Jewish/Christian God's proper name translates to Lord of Armies (YHWH Sabaoth). Let militant people be militant.
(This isn't supposed to be directed at anyone in particular)
I don't think the argument involving the Native Americans having claim to this land is a good one. They never claimed to own it. How could they with no concept of ownership? Not that this justifies their subjegation(sp)...
Take it easy
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:51 PM
one would have to believe that
israel was given by god to the jews,
pretty much settling that question.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:56 PM
Certainly not historically. But of what Jew/Catholics believe, yes (which was my point). The Bible reference was directed at the proud of it part. Historically, the Jews were not the original inhabitants og the land.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:59 PM
whereas the Zionist movement of Jews back to Israel
stems from the late 1800s.
See you learn something new everyday. I will be researching that because I never heard of this exodus back to Israel occuring in the late 1800's.
It is refuted by many scholars to this day that 6 million may not be exactly right. The new estimate is currently 5.1 million and even that is refuted to be too high by some and too low by others. So it isn't a typo.
I agree that making Israel is similar to reservation's attempting to right the wrongs but your analogy fails hard because the Native Americans weren't living in the badlands and the deserts of Arizona. They were marched by gunpoint into a land and climate in no way similar to the land from which they came. Israel was given the land from which they came and as Dude13 mentions stole.
I agree with dude that going back to these original slights may not have a purpose in solving the problem, but I was only hoping to shed some light on the context from which these battles continue.
People seem to think Israel is innocent and is being attacked for no reason and so reacting brutally (destroying a country for kidnapping 2 soldiers after Israel had kidnapped thousands and illegally occupied Lebanon for 26 years) is justified. Both sides are guilty EQUALLY for continuing escalations.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:04 PM
to the decimal point,
no one will ever know every single person lost.
suffice it to say many millions died
and there is no good motive
behind minimizing that fact.
israel ended its occupation of lebanon
several years ago
so that is hardly justification in july 2006
for crossing into israel, killing several soldiers and kidnapping two more.
if anyone did that to any other nation
there would be war.
so why isn't israel justified in punishing its' attackers ?
if hezbollah can come back years later citing old grievances
then certainly israel can address current ones.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:09 PM
I dislike these arguments of whose land it was to begin with, and who has a right to be their based on this. It doesn't really serve anypoint.
I agree. Unfortunately, we're talking about 4,000+ years of back-and-forth oppression on both sides, so the argument is bound to come up. What it boils down to is Israel desires to exist in the land of Jewish history, and the Arab countries wish to wipe it off the face of the earth.
I do believe that Israel has acted heavyhandedly in the past (and just recently, in fact). However, the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt demonstrate that Jews and Arabs can coexist peacefully in the Middle East. The peace only breaks down when you have extreme anti-Jew groups like Hamas and Hizbollah attacking Israel and preventing Israel from living in relative harmony with its neighbours.
Now, before anyone says that Israel is the aggressor, yadda yadda yadda, Israel does not have it ingrained into its constitution that the Palestinians or Lebanese must be removed from the Middle East. However, Hamas, Hizbollah, and even the PLO until recently have said that they will NOT be satisfied with anything less than the destruction of Israel as a nation. With people who operate under this premise, there can be no peace because there is no middle ground, no room for compromise or consensus. Regards,
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:26 PM
We gotta figure out, as a united world community maybe, the best way to combat these political fringes that use terrorism as a ways to a means. Blowing up a country or gunning down innocents on a beach in Gaza isn't going to bring peace. I saw a good interview on Sky News where George Galloway stuck it to the anchor when he asked her to name one single palestinian victim of violence. She couldn't of course but no doubt has a list of every israeli killed by palestinians. We need to be more objective and not so fast to take sides or condone harsh actions simply out of a feeling of obligation.
And I was pretty sure Hippie that even up to July Israel was occupying South Lebanese lands illegally. There was a precedent set when Hez traded prisoners it captured for prisoners that Israel had captured out of occupied lebanese lands. I think Hez was thinking they could do another similar trade but Israel decided to heavy hand them this time.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:28 PM
syria has, since the last war,
offered to return it to lebanon
without an israel-syria peace treaty ending hostilities between them,
israel isn't giving up what was syrian land
when they seized it.
they see the syrian offer as a ploy
meant to get by guile
what they could not take by force.
and a miscalculation does not excuse.
syria occupied lebanon too,
over a greater area and far longer time,
even being implicated in assassinating the Lebanese prime minister-
why isn't hezbollah attacking them ?
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:40 PM
There was a precedent set when Hez traded prisoners it captured for prisoners that Israel had captured out of occupied lebanese lands. I think Hez was thinking they could do another similar trade but Israel decided to heavy hand them this time.
If a precedent was set, it was a dangerous one indeed. Now Israel has changed the precedent. Hizbollah no longer has reason to think that they can just kidnap Israelis and expect to do a prisoner swap with no other consequences. Does the end justify the means? I don't know. To those concerned with Israel's security, probably.