By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Lebanon Attacks Israel

kopstudent89 on 13 August 2010
Badassbab said:
starcraft said:
Badassbab said:

Starcraft-

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed in a few areas. For one you assume the dictatorial monarchs in power (with tactic support from the West especially the US) would never do anything to upset their population. Dictators are in power not because of the will of the people. The will of the people in the region has been for centuries determined not by themselves but by outside influence and the puppet regimes in power which recieve crucial support from other powerful states to stay in power. 

In the past a colonial power may hope for a problem to go away in they keep the way things are long enough. Problem is we are no longer living in the 19th century. Israel is a colonial settler state which came into being quite undemocratically. It's easy to hope for the Palestinians to give up hope for a return to their homes or a just compensation from a racist, arrogant and imperialist point of view but nowadays we are thankfully much more civilised and don't let countries go unanswered for their actions as more than ever we as a world see it from the point of view of the victims of injustice who are usually weak and oppressed. And why support Israel as a Jewish state? Why bring in vile Islamic/Absolute Monarch regime like Saudi Arabia as an example? Why not say Norway which is a secular liberal democracy with one of the best living standards in the world?

Like I said before Iran and Syria have both said they will support whatever the Palestianians want and in Syria's case they want the GH back. That is their official foreign policy and not calling for the destruction of Israel regardless of Palestinian wishes as many seem to believe. Iran has offered to normalise relations with Israel if they withdraw to the pre 1967 borders but this was rejected as were most peace overtures by the Arab World. The only crime Iran is commiting is the crime of independance. The US hates countries that show independence. Hence they get demonised especially if they are much weaker and oil rich.

Paragraph one:

I don't assume for a moment that a dictatorship will never do anything in opposition to the will of it's people.  Indeed, to frame that argument as a rebuttal is extraordinarily narrow.  Because, just as dictatorships, be definition, do not act with the will of the people, they equally crave legitimacy, as can be seen in ANY currently existing dictatorship or non-democratic theocracy.  Iran constantly vilifying Israel and making much of their nuclear program, a process that INCREASED after the illegitimate elections.  Burma holding ridiculously fake elections but not allowing the key opposition figure to run, and North Korea building a cult around it's successive leaders.

Having spent DECADES vilifying Israel to it's people, to turn around and appear to 'submit' to peace on anything other than paper is simply not something that will be done.

 

Paragraph 2:

I will give you that Israel shouldn't necessarily be guarenteed Jewish statehood.  At the same time, people who are third and fourth generation (and in my opinion, even second generation) simply are not refugees, and are not entitled to land that was never theirs.  Just as Israeli's today are (in the vast majority at least) entirely disconnected from the actions that brought about their country's existence.  Telling them to give back land that has been theirs their entire lives would be like asking me, a tenth generation white Australian, to give my home to an Aborigine who's great-great grandfather was wronged by white people sixty years back.

 

Paragraph 3: 

Whilst at SOME points in the past Syria has certainly been less friendly than Iran, I would LOVE for you to point me to where Iran said that it would accept Israel and it's people if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders without any other conditions.

Just a year or so back the Iranian Foreign Minister was censured by Parliament for saying that Iran's beef was only with the Israeli Government and not it's people.

The regime in Iran came into being after the overthrow of the muderous Western backed Shah and after that the elimination and marginalisation of political opponents that were not Shia Islamic Revolutionaries. Israel didn't come into play until fairly recently once Iraq had been conquered and Iran became the main boogey man. The elections in Iran were almost certainly flawed. For one in every election since the revolution the candidates are vetted and this usually results in many being barred from standing. This is nothing new. There has yet to be a detailed study on the letimacy of the 2009 election results. What is certain is there were significant foreign involvement in trying to destabilise the country via covert means. As for Iran's nuclear program that's again something the US has blown out of all proportions, it's not Iran that keeps bringing it to the worlds attention. And Ahmadenijad is not Iran. He may bring Israel up from time to time but the main powerhouse in Iran is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah.

The fact is the Arab peace initiative was and still is on the table. There is no point having hypothetical debates about whether the population will accept it or not, it's not like they have a say in most matters anyway. There are many US bases dotted around the Gulf, I'm sure if they had a say they woukd like them to leave. The Egyptian and Jordian population (with it's large Palestinian refugees) didn't revolt after peace with Isreal. Israel simply rejected the Arab Peace Initiative with crucial US support. As it has rejected most peace overtures since it's foundation because peace means giving up occupied land it doesn't want to give up.

Oh and Iran DEFINATELY offered to normalise relations with the US and Israel back in 2003. Google it. Just as Egypt did in 1971-72 (which was rejected and led to the 1973 war). And Ahmadenijad reiterated Iran's position in that it will support whatever the Palestinians want.


It is nice to hear the truth be told every now and then.



Around the Network
vlad321 on 13 August 2010

These people are fighting over a tree. A FUCKING TREE. I can't see how nayoen can defend EITHER of these 2 parties. I say have everyone stfu stop support for either of the parties both politically and materially and let them fight it out until they are either tired of fighting, left the area, or droppe dead.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Coca-Cola on 13 August 2010

@superchunk

seems you know the history very well so don't get angry if my thoughts are wrong, just correct me.

No matter how Israel got the land, the fact is they are there and I believe you said you don't mind Israel there.

After the establishment of the state, Israel was attacked - I believe twice.  So Israel fought back and there is a bad relations there.

All I remember is the picture of Jimmy Carter and his historic peace treaty - and then Israel was attacked.  I was still young at the time but remembering the joy of peace followed by disappointment.  So, I don't fault israel for not trusting any peace treaty.  I know that they are still being attacked and I wonder what else can Israel do except to fight and make their land as safe as possible for their citizens.   That's where I am now, I don't trust any peace treaty that comes on the table for Israel.  It seems any time they sign anything, they are attacked.  

Even with this thread, Israel did not do anything wrong imo, yet they are killed and when Israel fights back they are the bad guy?

I pray for peace in the Middle East yet I don't know how it's gonna come about.



superchunk on 14 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:

@superchunk

seems you know the history very well so don't get angry if my thoughts are wrong, just correct me.

No matter how Israel got the land, the fact is they are there and I believe you said you don't mind Israel there.

After the establishment of the state, Israel was attacked - I believe twice.  So Israel fought back and there is a bad relations there.

All I remember is the picture of Jimmy Carter and his historic peace treaty - and then Israel was attacked.  I was still young at the time but remembering the joy of peace followed by disappointment.  So, I don't fault israel for not trusting any peace treaty.  I know that they are still being attacked and I wonder what else can Israel do except to fight and make their land as safe as possible for their citizens.   That's where I am now, I don't trust any peace treaty that comes on the table for Israel.  It seems any time they sign anything, they are attacked.  

Even with this thread, Israel did not do anything wrong imo, yet they are killed and when Israel fights back they are the bad guy?

I pray for peace in the Middle East yet I don't know how it's gonna come about.


You're right and I fully agree, regardless of the history, Isreal exists and deserves to continue to exists. I have never said anything different to that basic point.

I'm not sure on your timeline of info on President Carter. While he has been very vocal, and pro-Palestinian, he never created a peace treaty between these groups. He is known to of had some part of the Geneva Accords, but this happened right the middle of the 2nd Intifada that was originally sparked by Israeli PM Ariel Sharom. (hit wikipedia for more info)

If you could give me a year range I could be more helpful on your inquiry.

However, you must realize that neither side has been without major faults throughout this entire history. There are wars and minor conflicts that were 100% started by either side. The modern issue is you have a nuclear, heavily armed and trained military that has aparthied like systems and control over another people. That same nation has been working against international laws for over 50 years for the obvious purpose of slowly taking more land.

No Arab nation, or even group of nations, has ever been in a military equal level with Israel and over time that disparity has only gotten far worse. There is no way (with the exception of Isreal destroying the Dome of the Rock) would any Arab nation launch a modern war with Israel.

Iran (which is not Arab, but is Muslim, just like Pakistan) is the only relatively close nation that could even start a war with them and even they would not for fear of nuclear retaliation, let alone US involvement.

Israel has no real fear of accepting a peace treaty except that it would commit them to not acquire more land. That is why I only see a full annexation of West Bank by Israel as a possible solution in the near future. It would screw Gaza and so many other refugees, but it would mostly satisfy extreamist Israeli settlers as well as millions of Arabs living in West Bank currently.

But, I would think this compramise would also need to include some financial agreement to Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and Gaza for refugees as well as these nations finally allowing these people to become full citizens.



Coca-Cola on 14 August 2010

The peace treaty that I'm referring to was between Israel and Egypt.

Thanks for the info., I just find it hard to see peace if Gaza was given back.  Let's say Israel gives the land back, and few months or a year after they are attacked again, then what?



Around the Network
Badassbab on 14 August 2010

The physical land of Gaza has been returned to the Palestinians but the border, coast and airspace remain under Israeli and Egyptian (Rafah border) control. Also Gaza is just one part of occupied Palestine, don't forget about the West Bank they are both one and the same. Again hypothetical questions are being raised, if Israel is attacked she has a right to defend herself against the perpetrators but truth is Israel hasn't entirely left Gaza, still attacks it, has illegally blockaded it, has thousands of Palestinian prisoners (and thousands of Lebanese) in it's dungeons most without trial and of course continues with settlement expansion in the West Bank. Those are the main stumbling blocks.






superchunk on 14 August 2010
Coca-Cola said:

The peace treaty that I'm referring to was between Israel and Egypt.

Thanks for the info., I just find it hard to see peace if Gaza was given back.  Let's say Israel gives the land back, and few months or a year after they are attacked again, then what?

Peace was not given to Gaza. Gaza used to be a prison with guards all through the facility, now its a prison with higher walls and all the guards on the walls. You can't call that peace nor can you really wonder why there is still violence emanating from the area.

The peace treaty between Isreal and Egypt had nothing to do with Israels actions. It was Egyptian president Sadat who essentially forced the convorsation by simply flying a plane to Tel Aviv and inviting himself to meet with the Israeli PM. Then of course there was the mountain of money the US agreed to split between them. However, there has been no war with Egypt since then so I still don't understand your reference to Israel always getting attacked after it accepts peace.



Coca-Cola on 14 August 2010
superchunk said:
Coca-Cola said:

The peace treaty that I'm referring to was between Israel and Egypt.

Thanks for the info., I just find it hard to see peace if Gaza was given back.  Let's say Israel gives the land back, and few months or a year after they are attacked again, then what?

Peace was not given to Gaza. Gaza used to be a prison with guards all through the facility, now its a prison with higher walls and all the guards on the walls. You can't call that peace nor can you really wonder why there is still violence emanating from the area.

The peace treaty between Isreal and Egypt had nothing to do with Israels actions. It was Egyptian president Sadat who essentially forced the convorsation by simply flying a plane to Tel Aviv and inviting himself to meet with the Israeli PM. Then of course there was the mountain of money the US agreed to split between them. However, there has been no war with Egypt since then so I still don't understand your reference to Israel always getting attacked after it accepts peace.

I remember that there was an attack on Israel right after the peace treaty was signed.  again, I remember it through the news at the time - haven't researched it. 

then again, I'm just wondering, if the walls come down, and Israel is attacked, then what?  I'm just afraid of that.  That's all - cause I think that would be one of the worst case scenarios.



contestgamer on 03 September 2010
haxxiy said:
contestgamer said:
MrBubbles said:

i re read his posts and they seemed to be less supportive of hezbollah than the original impression i got from them.  of course since he is supporting lebanon and since hezbollah( a terrorist organization) had veto power over the government last i saw...


Just beause the US government has declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization doesn't given any objective credence to the idea. Things arent as black and white. They're fighting for freedom. In my view Israel is a much more damaging entity. But I won't force that opinion on anybody by declaring either of them a "terrorist organization". It's a subjective experience and opinion...

Ironic to see how often those helding the "fight for freedom" banners are responsible for worst deeds along the process. They also end up bringing exactly the opposite of freedom in the case of managing to get the throne.


That's the banner every war is fought under. The truth is in war the invaded side is ALWAYS fighting for freedom. That doesn't justify all their actions up until and during wartime, but it certainly gives them justification for fighting as opposed to an invading entity. US, Isreal and Hezbollah are all proclaiming to be fighting for freedom. It doesnt justify either of them. In the end you gotta pick a side or not but you cant support all of them. And imo its not so black and white that there can ony be one morally acceptable answer.



contestgamer on 03 September 2010
RageBot said:
contestgamer said:
MrBubbles said:

i re read his posts and they seemed to be less supportive of hezbollah than the original impression i got from them.  of course since he is supporting lebanon and since hezbollah( a terrorist organization) had veto power over the government last i saw...


Just beause the US government has declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization doesn't given any objective credence to the idea. Things arent as black and white. They're fighting for freedom. In my view Israel is a much more damaging entity. But I won't force that opinion on anybody by declaring either of them a "terrorist organization". It's a subjective experience and opinion...


And what about kidnapping, and later murdering Israeli Soldiers (who were guarding the boreders)?

What about bombarding civilians for the sole objective of terrorizing the population?


Because the CIA and Mossad dont do any of that. No, they do. Heck the armies do it to, we've seen countless abuses uncovered by wikileaks and others that the Generals would love to remain silent about. They just have more resources to cover it up and don't do it to "terrorize" the enemy nation, but they do it to achieve specific, morally very questionable goals. The reason Hezbollah has to resort to terrorism is because it doesnt have the resources necessary to achieve any real military goals.