Hamas founder killed

[B-Man]

[Gamblor]

Aliyah is Hebrew for immigration to Israel (literally, "ascending"). To immigrate to Israel is to "Make Aliya"

The Arab states have never succeeded and have no deterrent to further attacks, so they Try, Try Again

[Gamblor]

That was the British governments position for 30 years and got us nowhere. We didn't make progress until we started negotiating with Sinn Fein whilst the IRA continued its campaign. It's just something you have to accept if you want the bombing to stop.

Depends on how you define progress. The political validity of the Hamas position, or the Palestinian position for that matter, is not what I am arguing, that we can argue til we're blue in the face and still get nowhere.

The only factor is this: no government has stood up to terrorism in history. The British tried and they finally gave up. And terrorism still exists. Only when terrorism is shown to be completely ineffective, then will it stop.

Read "Why Terrorism Works" by Alan Dershowitz

[ComedyLimp]

"no government has stood up to terrorism in history. The British tried and they finally gave up. And terrorism still exists"

This shows, if you'll forgive me, a complete misunderstanding of the situaion and history of Great Britain and Ireland. The only people who would agree with this view are the terrorist splinter groups and a minority of extremist, predominantly Unionist, politicians -- both of whom who would like nothing better than the abandonment of the political process and return to a futile attempt at mutual annihilation.

"Only when terrorism is shown to be completely ineffective, then will it stop"

This view rather condemns Israel to perpetual terror.

Matthew

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if I lose a war and all that happens to cut my losses and achieve a cease fire is smile for the camera and take a little of the land my enemy conquered back, what on earth prevents me from declaring war as soon as my army is back at full capacity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, logically you want a deterrent/punishment to dissuade people from making war again. But historically, this strategy has also often backfired as draconian terms have pushed the vanquished into positions where they feel they have nothing to lose by fighting again, having lost everything already. Not to say this is necessarily the case in Israel, but just to point out that universal generalizations about how wars should be wrapped up are highly suspect.

My point vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and admittedly I'm no expert, is simpler: I just don't think that the Palestinians are likely to negotiate in the near future under the terms Israel wants them to, both because the leadership doesn't have enough control over the extremists and because if they give up the threat of violence they will have no leverage. I'm not defending this position, I'm just positing that it may be a reality. And given that reality, one has to conclude that the decision on Israel's part not to negotiate unless the bombings stop is essentially a decision not to negotiate at all.

[Cyrus]

"The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed ... because the Israelis are not quite as ruthless as the Palestinians."


There are 3 reasons that the Israelis have not gone through to the end, as you insinuated, and tranformed their military superiority into a complete annihilation of the Palestinian people.

1. The action would cross a threshold in the tolerance of the American public on whose attitude towards the Palestinians (85% of American are polled as "feeling hostile" to the Palestinians) Israel relies for the continuation of the subsidies and the grants and all kinds of American assistance. If hostility turns to sympathy, the Israeli cause is doomed in the US! So, the Israelis have to be careful with their butchering. (Experience in preparing kosher food come shandy, in this endavor, perhaps.)

2. The Jews are culturally and politically more advanced than the Arabs (not so much the Palestinians, Palestinians have always been among most educated and advanced of Arabs). The Israeli democracy (a democracy for Jews, more than anything else, much like a South African democracy for Whites) is alive and functionign enough to stop such a whole sale massacre - if it is done wholesale. (It is currently been done in small doses --- Three Palestinians for every Israeli dead, is the ratio, if you didn't know.)

3. The Israeli population itself would not accept such a Final Solution. The Jews have a relatively recent (and horrific) memory of another, more famous Final Solution, the one that the Nazis reserved for them in Europe. The memory of the Holocaust is still alive! This fact, coupled with the Israeli democracy allowing people to influence their government, as described above, does not allow those in power to go through with a massacre (although people like Sharon have explicitly stated their preference for a total wipe-out "and ship the remnants to Jordan"). Of course, that older generation is dying off, as time passes. And the new generations of Israelis have fewer scruples about "radical solutions" than those Jewish elders who had arms tattooed with numbers.

...Note that I didn't bring anywhere in my reasoning world opinion or the United Nations, as factors that could stop Israel from exterminating the Palestinians. Both are equally helpless when faced with a mighty America that supports unquestioningly everything and anything that Israel does.

Take care.

[B-Man]

Your 3 statements are true, but you left out the most important reasons--because it would be morally wrong, and because Israelis (save perhaps for a very small number of lunatics) have no desire to commit genocide.

Contrast that with the Palestinians, most of whom would like to push the Jews into the sea. If the Palestinians could wipe out Israel, they would. Israel could wipe out the Palestinians, but chooses not to.

Yet another example of the lack of moral equivalence between the actions of the two sides.

[Gamblor]

(not so much the Palestinians, Palestinians have always been among most educated and advanced of Arabs).

You might get a small argument from pretty much every Arab in the Middle East, as these "Palestinians" are generally looked at by the Arab street as leeches and uncivilized barbarians. But I digess:

Why do you think that is? Might it be the universities and infrastructure they have? You wouldn't happen to know who paid for that, would you? Ah yes, those genocidal Israelis built the educational institutions that now act as centres of terrorist activism.

In any event, I was under the impression that Israel is the puppeteer for the American public and that it didn't care about world opinion, as I'm sure the recent events in Gaza city might imply.

The only thing guaranteed to prevent more and more of the Nazi regime is a State with a Jewish majority. That has to be accomplished as peacefully as possible, but it must be accomplished. Perhaps the recent events in Toronto might influence your opinion. Check out the front page of the Toronto Sun and Toronto Globe and Mail.

By definition, a democracy's government is the voice of the people (in reality, it's a republic, but we won't confuse you with such mumbo jumbo).

As such, ideally, Israel would be Jewish simply because there'd be no reason for anyone to want to live there. But, alas, the Arab powers have conspired against the descendants of British Mandate Arabs, and as such, their hatred is misplaced towards Israel, and more and more of the information we receive is based on that misdirected hatred, as the great Pan-Arabian peninsula must not be compromised by Jews. Incidentally, did you know that the Zionists have already begun plans to colonize Northern Iraq??

[Cyrus]

The problem with Israel is not just that it pursues the militaristic solution after five decades and that it has yet to make any single diplomatic opening (except for Egypt, again for military reasons!) . The problem with Israel is the complete militarization of its policies.

"The rule has always been that peace would be achieved on the negotiating table. But no negotiations under fire. Under any circumstances."

Suppose the Palestinians have the same attitude. And they say, if the fire doesn't stop and the killing of Palestinians doesn't stop, there will be no peace and no peace negotiations. Then what?

"Israel won every war, and as a result, it negotiates from a position of power. That's the way it works: The winner dictates the terms."

Suppose the Palestinians have the same attitude. And they hold off any prospects for dialogue until they achieve military victory, or its equivalent in terror. Then what?

[John Cole]

BTW, I did note the quotation marks.