This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Israel, Honourable Defender or Aggressor?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
609147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
GoGoGodzilla
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
A news article with a view from the other side:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/boatloads-of-bloody-minded-pacifists/story-e6frezz0-1225874166305
Daily Telegraph is fairly well known in Sydney as being a trashy populist paper, so to be honest, it's surprising that this featured.
Post by
Orranis
Personally, it's probably the most gray area of the world for me, being that I come from a family mixed up with what my Jewish humanities teacher likes to call 'gun-firing liberals' and racist Jewish-Zionists who are about as close to Jewish Nazis as you'll ever get, only it's directed at Muslims.
However, honestly, whether or not it's an honorable defender or an aggressor, I do not believe that it's right. As they so like to advocate, they are a massive minority compared to the Muslims, yet they demanded about 50% of the land and kicked thousands out of their homes. I'd probably be willing to fire a gun or two as well. Especially considering the fact that in Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, it directly states that you cannot do to another that which you would not have done unto yourself. So let me get this logic... The Israelis are sick of getting kicked out of their homes, so they go kick a whole bunch of others out of their homes. Great thinking, guys.
Also, to put it bluntly, Israel is Hitler's greatest triumph. In fact, the early Zionist movement tried to work with the Nazis in order to create a Jewish "homeland." Let's just think about it, a bunch of Jews who want to live over a wall covered with barbed wire in their own segregated little town. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Not only that, but all the claims that Jews are "unsafe" is just bull. I'm sorry, but for all the people with Israeli citizenship, I think about half live abroad. But then again, it's so obvious that you walk around with fear of a garage-made bomb dropping over your head in New York. Oh wait...
Edit: Not to mention their list of "Anti-Semitic Self Hating Jews" (My father is on it, actually) is hilarious. For example, judge Goldstone of South Africa saying they both commit war crimes is made invalid because he 'worked with Apartheid,' which is funny because Israel was the Apartheid government's main supply of weapons, even nuclear weapons.
Post by
Monday
I like that article >.>
The Israelis are sick of getting kicked out of their homes, so they go kick a whole bunch of others out of their homes. Great thinking, guys.
Reminds me of the Book of... Joshua?
Post by
Squishalot
The Telegraph article? Yeah, I was pretty impressed too. It's just a shame that people who are fixated on the "OMG ISRAEL ATTACKED AID SHIPS OH THE HUMANITY!1!1one" aspect of it will never understand the underlying Middle-Eastern politics.
Post by
Monday
The Telegraph article? Yeah, I was pretty impressed too. It's just a shame that people who are fixated on the "OMG ISRAEL ATTACKED AID SHIPS OH THE HUMANITY!1!1one" aspect of it will never understand the underlying Middle-Eastern politics.
Aye, most people in the world can't look at inner motives to save their life.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, though I normally respect your arguments, that's just a load of self-pitying BS. You don't have it as tough as a lot of others. Be thankful that your parents aren't from the Middle East - you'd have a lot more to wallow about. Again, if your biggest concern is about labels, I suggest that you grow a thicker skin, because many other cultural groups in America and across the world have to deal with judgements of a more brutal kind.
Nope. I'm not starving to death. I'm not being shot in the head. My children aren't enslaved. I will not spend the rest of my days weeping about my situation. It isn't that bad. However, there is something wrong, and I feel justified in pointing it out. That's all.
Post by
Squishalot
Nope. I'm not starving to death. I'm not being shot in the head. My children aren't enslaved. I will not spend the rest of my days weeping about my situation. It isn't that bad. However, there is something wrong, and I feel justified in pointing it out. That's all.
Fair enough. But for people who don't care about the PC brigade's accusations of you stealing native american land, we're also not going to care about how you feel wronged by statements we don't care about. It just sounds whiney.
I remember when I was younger, I used to question the Australian attitudes around our indigenous population. "Why should we have to say sorry to them and compensate them, we weren't the ones who invaded, hell, my family migrated here!" Right now, frankly, I couldn't care less. Right now, they're citizens of Australia, just like everyone else here, and should be treated accordingly. (Note the correct use of 'couldn't'.)
Also note - we don't refer to them as 'Native Australians', they're referred to as '
Indigenous Australians
' or 'Aboriginal Australians', which acknowledges them as the 'first owners of Australia', as such, and acknowledge that yes, the British were the second owners, as opposed to identifying them as 'native to Australia', which appears to be the core argument that you make against the immigration ideology.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Civilians were casualties.
I wish people wouldn't keep saying this. Let's say it properly. There were no
non-combatant
casualties. On the boats where the IDF was not attacked, there were no casualties at all. What does this imply?
Now if the IDF had waited another 35 miles of travel, it would have been a completely different situation. This action would have had an easy classification of a legitimate police action in territorial waters, as covered under the Convention of the High Seas, regardless of whether Israel has signed the treaty.
I agree. I'm highly inclined to think that the IDF misjudged the exact position of the ships, and jumped the gun a bit. But their actions were in the spirit of being a semi-legitimate police action intervening before the flotilla entered Israeli waters.
In re: casualties. The video evidence provided by the IDF is probably the only good thing they have going for them. It clearly shows that their personnel were under armed assault before the weapons-release order was given. If they had fired into the convoy without this, before an attempt was made to board peacefully, then it would have been a clear-cut case of piracy under the Law Of The Sea Treaty due to the fact that they were still in international waters.
This is the thing. Everyone's condemning Israel for firing on aid workers, when in reality, they actually did fire in self defense, and all the evidence stacks up to that. There may be a question over the legality of boarding and detaining in the first place, but the deaths of 'civillians' are purely in the civillians' own hands.
Post by
352391
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Without trying to sound racist or bigoted, every conquering of a nation/land is purely survival of the fittest.
This isn't and never really was in question. Of course Europe was in a better position to take over America than the natives at the time were to defend it. Europe had muskets, and Americans had arrows. Europe had armattas, compasses, gunpowder, regimented military, etc. This isn't really big news. No very weak country ever stood up to a really strong country and won. Grasshoppers do not fell lions.
The debate isn't even about whether it was 'right' or not. There seems to be a consensus that it could have been handled better, no matter what human displacement event is in question.
The debate is about what do we do now. Now that people have been displaced have died of old age long long ago, and the displacers have died of old age long long ago, what, if anything, is the proper procedure for 'rectifying' the situation now that everyone's children have inherited some ugly history?
Post by
Squishalot
This isn't and never really was in question. Of course Europe was in a better position to take over America than the natives at the time were to defend it. Europe had muskets, and Americans had arrows. Europe had armattas, compasses, gunpowder, regimented military, etc. This isn't really big news. No very weak country ever stood up to a really strong country and won. Grasshoppers do not fell lions.
It is relevant, somewhat, simply because it's only international 'niceties' that stop Israel from wiping the floor with Palestine and steamrolling them into the Mediterranean.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
And it's only the US' backing of Israel that gives them the ability to "wipe the floor" with anyone. They're like the bully son of the local sheriff. Not so scary on their own, but you don't want to cross "daddy".
I do agree with you, but the help we've given them has been in the form of weapons systems, training, etc. At this point, they're more than capable of fighting a successful large-scale war without our direct assistance. I've read an Israeli pilot in an old F-16 could fly circles around an American pilot in something more advanced -- who knows if that's true, but people talk about the Israeli Air Force as if it is the gold standard of piloting. Not to mention they have 2 years of mandatory military service, and one of the more zealous strains of Nationalism around. The Six-Day-War as an example, had no direct U.S. intervention, and the results of that more than speak for themselves, pertaining to Israel's strength.
The fact that the U.S. would be there if they needed us definitely adds to their scariness I'm sure, but it's not the only source.
On a side note, has anyone read The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy (the book is quite different than the movie)? The driving force of the events in that book was when Israel lost the "moral high ground" by shooting a peaceful protester IIRC. Meh, something to think about.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
And it's only the US' backing of Israel that gives them the ability to "wipe the floor" with anyone. They're like the bully son of the local sheriff. Not so scary on their own, but you don't want to cross "daddy".
I disagree I would imagine if america was not always overseeing Israel's activitys they would invade the entirety of the middle-east as a response to the arab nationalists invading them.
Also, Israel has a much better organized and supplied military then surrounding Middle Eastern countries, and while not confirmed, the assumption that they have nuclear weapons is commonly accepted.
Also, a note on the six day war, for all the citation of how small Israel's population is, their fighting force is about the same as well as the fact they have much more firepower.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.