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
Heckler
There HAS to be a blockaid. Period. Food and medical aide should be allowed through, no doubt.
In my opinion, this is the core of the issue. If the blockade were being handled 'properly' -- Turkey (and Ireland) would have felt no need to risk an international incident by attempting to break the blockade.
But it's not being handled properly. As Squish said -- "they made their bed, now they have to sleep in it" -- even if it means starving their children to death. This isn't right, and I think we probably all agree on that. And if Israel is willing to
kill
people from a third-party (an ally at that!) who try to combat this wrongness, that's probably a path toward regional destabilization as well.
Post by
Squishalot
Stick to the issue, the blockaid.
'Blockade'. They're not blocking aid.
Irony? :)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A solider who bombs a school accidentally doesn't intend to kill the civilians either. But he intended to kill. And civilians died.
A terrorist, as you've defined it, is an organisation or group that kills civilians. It's an objective title. You can suggest it's subjective based on the number of civilians killed by the organisation - that one group is more terrorist than another, fair enough, I'll accept your argument for the purposes of discussion.
I don't think it's subjective at all. 2 is objectively more than 1. The more innocents you kill, the more of a terrorist you are.
Now, suppose Palestine has killed 1 million European civilians. They've also killed 2000 Israeli civilians. The Israelis have killed 6000 Palestinian civilians.
In total, Palestine has killed 1,002,000 civilians. Israel has killed 6,000 civilians. Who is the bigger terrorist?
But they haven't.
OOH OOH, WHAT IF MARTIANS LANDED! AND GOD WAS REALLY A WOMAN. AND IT RAINED MEATBALLS!
You like your what-if's and assume-this's. If I'm discussing a actual event or situation, I honestly don't give a damn about what-if's.
No I don't get it. I provide numbers, and you pretend that a million more people died, and supposedly refute the numbers I gave....
....
Now bed for real...
Post by
Squishalot
Heckler - how would you suggest that Israel solve the situation? Hamas has already decreed that they won't stop until all of Israel is subjugated under them, or words to that effect.
Post by
Squishalot
Now, suppose Palestine has killed 1 million European civilians. They've also killed 2000 Israeli civilians. The Israelis have killed 6000 Palestinian civilians.
In total, Palestine has killed 1,002,000 civilians. Israel has killed 6,000 civilians. Who is the bigger terrorist?
But they haven't.
You haven't demonstrated that in your argument. All you care about is your Israeli/Palestinian deaths. Which is flawed and incorrect (and now childish).
Sorry mate, you're still wrong.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Heckler - how would you suggest that Israel solve the situation? Hamas has already decreed that they won't stop until all of Israel is subjugated under them, or words to that effect.
Uh....
Hamas =/= PLO
and Israel's the one that keeps breaking the ceasefires.
Goddam you guys like robbing me of my sleep..
Post by
Dragoonman
Lets evacuate every single person from the Middle East and then blow it up and start over.
Lol.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Now, suppose Palestine has killed 1 million European civilians. They've also killed 2000 Israeli civilians. The Israelis have killed 6000 Palestinian civilians.
In total, Palestine has killed 1,002,000 civilians. Israel has killed 6,000 civilians. Who is the bigger terrorist?
But they haven't.
You haven't demonstrated that in your argument. All you care about is your Israeli/Palestinian deaths. Which is flawed and incorrect (and now childish).
Sorry mate, you're still wrong.
What the hell... It's not part of my argument because it doesn't exist?
Seriously, provide some #$%^ing facts just shut up. Seriously.
Are you going to ask why I didn't count the martians too?
Shutting computer off...
Now.
Post by
Squishalot
Heckler - how would you suggest that Israel solve the situation? Hamas has already decreed that they won't stop until all of Israel is subjugated under them, or words to that effect.
Uh....
Hamas =/= PLO
and Israel's the one that keeps breaking the ceasefires.
Goddam you guys like robbing me of my sleep..
Not our fault :)
While you're still up though, I'd still like to point out that your argument is flawed.
What the hell... It's not part of my argument because it doesn't exist?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html
If you want to keep claiming that 'it doesn't exist', read here. It's laughable that you honestly believe that Palestine is not responsible for any civilian deaths outside of Israel.
Post by
Heckler
Heckler - how would you suggest that Israel solve the situation? Hamas has already decreed that they won't stop until all of Israel is subjugated under them, or words to that effect.
I honestly don't know, and I wouldn't assume that I know enough to come up with a good answer. But I can look at this specific situation and see "wrongness" all over this embargo. I can see this blockade becoming the impetus (not the prevention) for large scale conflict in the area as it becomes more widely known. I can see Israel losing global support little by little over the last 50 years, and I can see why.
I doubt there's a silver bullet, but I think a good first step would be for the Rest of the World to use their moral pressure to tell Israel that killing humanitarian workers and starving children won't be accepted as a path to their security.
As far as an overall fix, I only know enough to suppose that one doesn't exist. Religion is too powerful a fuel for hatred, murder, and war for an area like Jerusalem to be peaceful for long.
Post by
Squishalot
I doubt there's a silver bullet, but I think a good first step would be for the Rest of the World to use their moral pressure to tell Israel that killing humanitarian workers and starving children won't be accepted as a path to their security.
They'll just come back and point out that a) they were attacked first; and b) they're not starving the children, they're letting in basic foodstuffs, precisely as you pointed out before.
Post by
Heckler
They'll just come back and point out that a) they were attacked first; and b) they're not starving the children, they're letting in basic foodstuffs, precisely as you pointed out before.
So? Part a. is childish and ridiculous, and part b. is easily checkable by a third party investigation, which would be necessary (and would likely require delegates from Islam-friendly nations).
And I didn't necessarily mean "starving to death" -- just "starving" -- which they would probably admit to, in some regard. Diplomatic pressure would then increase, and continue to increase until Israel truly was standing all alone, or they capitulated.
Post by
Squishalot
This is the thing. Why is it that Israel is seen to be the one who has to capitulate? Why not Palestine?
I'm not sure that part A is ridiculous though. I think it's been reasonably well established that the Israelis fired back in self defence (notwithstanding 'excessive force'), after one of their commandos was beaten to within an inch of his life.
Post by
Heckler
I simply meant capitulate on the excessive parts of the embargo -- I'm not sure Palestine has anything to concede in this argument... Stop eating so much?
As far as the 'attacked first' -- I simply meant that this is a silly justification for anti-
humanitarian
action of any means (i.e. I'm not referring to the actions on the boat -- you asked for an overall fix, and my focus in that reply was simply on scaling back the embargo -- the boat is a separate discussion).
On the boat: What the IDF commando did was wrong -- even if it was self-defense, it was wrong (specifically because of the excessive force argument). Israel deserves some sort of diplomatic punishment for this, whether because of their defense of his action or simply the fact that it happened. And since it has opened the rest of the world's eyes to this embargo (which was the motivating force behind the entire event), the embargo itself has proven itself a force for bad rather than good, and also warrants diplomatic punishment.
Israel's had a bum deal for thousands of years, but that doesn't make them infallible in their current position, and it doesn't mean they should be immune to 'moral inspection' from the rest of us. The world needs to realize this, and call Israel out when it crosses
that
line. That doesn't mean cut all ties, it doesn't mean we start selling weapons to Hamas and the PLO, it doesn't mean we sit idle as Israel is overrun -- it simply means that we show them the line they've crossed and ask them to come back -- to maintain 'our' 'moral high ground' and hope that eventually, everyone follows us.
With that, I'm headed to sleep.
Post by
Squishalot
Ah ok, gotcha.
Sorry, I thought you were implying that Israel should step back and let Palestine run itself happily with no embargo at all.
Post by
Heckler
Ah ok, gotcha.
Sorry, I thought you were implying that Israel should step back and let Palestine run itself happily with no embargo at all.
No, that question isn't black-and-white... but scaling back the portions of the embargo specifically designed to promote misery and poverty does seem quite black-and-white to me. If "the first world" is going to continue to be a force for good, it's important to recognize and correct sanctioned policies like this one where possible. I edited my above post right as you posted with further thoughts on the boat, and now I'm really going to sleep. =)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html
If you want to keep claiming that 'it doesn't exist', read here. It's laughable that you honestly believe that Palestine is not responsible for any civilian deaths outside of Israel.
Every single one of those is include in the numbers I provided, barring the al-Qaida attacks, which were not Palestinian attacks.
Also included in the numbers where the foreign citizens that the Israelis have killed in Israel and the occupied territories.
You were saying?
Post by
Squishalot
Number of Palestinians killed since 2000: ~6000
Number of Israelis killed since 2000: ~ 1000
Number of Palestinian children killed since 2000: ~1500
Number of Israeli children killed since 2000: ~120
Number of Palestinian civilians killed since 2000: ~3000-4000
Number of Israeli civilians killed since 2000: ~750
Number of Palestinians killed on Palestinian land since 2000: ~6200
Number of Israelis killed on Israeli land since 2000: ~600
Every single one of those is include in the numbers I provided, barring the al-Qaida attacks, which were not Palestinian attacks.
Really. I assume that
this
is your source.
The numbers cited above include civilians and combattants killed by members of the opposing nationality
Furthermore, the page is:
Israelis and Palestinians Killed
Not Americans, only Israelis. So, by definition, it does not include Americans killed by Palestinian attacks, such as:
July 31, 2002, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Nine people were killed when a bomb exploded in the main cafeteria at the Hebrew University's Mount Scopus campus in Jerusalem. Five were U.S. citizens: Janis Ruth Coulter, 36, of MA; Marla Bennet, 24, of San Diego, CA; David Gritz (also a French citizen), 24, of Peru, MA; Benjamin Blutstein, 25, of Susquehanna Township, PA; and Dina Carter, 37, of NC. Israelis David Ladovsky, 29, and Levina Shapira, 53 also died in the bombing. U.S. citizens injured: Spencer Dew, 26, of Owensboro, Kentucky; Zeev Spencer; Harris Gershon; Jamie Harris. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
... unless the Americans held dual citizenship, such as
March 21, 2002, Jerusalem, Israel. Bombing on a Jerusalem street. U.S. citizens injured: Alan Joseph Bauer, 37, of Chicago, Yonathon Bauer, 7 (dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship).
Also included in the numbers where the foreign citizens that the Israelis have killed in Israel and the occupied territories.
I fail to see evidence of that anywhere in the relevant source. In fact, I'm linked to the following source:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
Here, it clearly states:
Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians: 237 in the Occupied Territories, 490 in Israel.
Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians: 245 in the Occupied Territories, 90 in Israel.
Total Israelis killed by Palestinians: 237 + 490 + 245 + 90 = 1062, which is the number listed in your source, funnily enough.
It does not include
:
Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians: 17 in the Occupied Territories and 37 in Israel.
So, just to make it clear, your statement:
Also included in the numbers where the foreign citizens that the Israelis have killed in Israel and the occupied territories.
is a complete load of crap.
Besides which, you're only counting from September 29, 2000, and ignoring any details about civilian casualties caused by either country prior to then. So you still can't come to any reasonable conclusion about which country is the bigger terrorist.
I'll give you one post to concede that you're either wrong, or to produce a source of information backing up your statement, before I completely ignore any unsourced information that you provide in this thread henceforth.
Post by
Heckler
I'll give you one post to concede that you're either wrong.
For the record, all of this "ha ha, I win, you lose" that you've ended most of your recent posts with is making you sound childish (as if your motivation in this argument isn't any sort of discussion, but rather, some sort of victory).
Just sayin'.
Post by
Squishalot
I'll give you one post to concede that you're either wrong.
For the record, all of this "ha ha, I win, you lose" that you've ended most of your recent posts with is making you sound childish (as if your motivation in this argument isn't any sort of discussion, but rather, some sort of victory).
Just sayin'.
I'm sure it does, yet, at the same time, Hyperspacerebel seems to be playing the same point. "OOH OOH, WHAT IF MARTIANS LANDED! AND GOD WAS REALLY A WOMAN. AND IT RAINED MEATBALLS!"
HSR, as far as I recall, has never conceded that he's been wrong about a point or argument, in the year or so that I've debated with him on these forums. He simply walks away from the argument and doesn't get involved anymore, or drops it and argues about a different point instead. While I really don't care terribly, because I still have the moral 'victory', that my argument was a better one at the time, it's a fairly rude thing to do, from a discussion perspective. I'm still waiting for a concession from him, about anything that we've discussed, that he's been wrong.
It'd take a while, but I'm sure I could dredge up a dozen or more examples if you really wanted.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.