Get out of here with your History and Facts.

All we care about now is, Israel has the right to defend itself!

HughMcB wrote:Get out of here with your History and Facts.

All we care about now is, Israel has the right to defend itself!

Yep and anything and everything Israel does or might conceivably do is always in self defence.

Nicko wrote:

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

Because that's what they agreed to when they joined the UN.

But keep in mind that what I said was those borders were where the negotiation starts.

Who was it that attacked whom in 1967?

angelo wrote:

Nicko wrote:

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

Because that's what they agreed to when they joined the UN.

But keep in mind that what I said was those borders were where the negotiation starts.

Who was it that attacked whom in 1967?

According to wikipedia, Israel started that war.

angelo wrote:

Nicko wrote:

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

Because that's what they agreed to when they joined the UN.

But keep in mind that what I said was those borders were where the negotiation starts.

Who was it that attacked whom in 1967?

Israel launched a series of pre-emptive airstrikes on Egypt, then followed it up with ground assaults.

Go look it up.

Better yet: look it up FIRST before engaging in discussion about the topic.

angelo wrote:

Nicko wrote:

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

Because that's what they agreed to when they joined the UN.

But keep in mind that what I said was those borders were where the negotiation starts.

Who was it that attacked whom in 1967?

Since two other posters have pointed out that Israel initiated force in that case, I'll - rather than giving you a slew of historical data that you should have equipped yourself with before asking that question - use this post to point out that your question here is completely irrelevant to the point to which it is - presumably at least - responding to.

Even if Israel was definitely and uncontroversially the assaulted party in the 1967 conflict, that would have no bearing whatsoever on their claim to the territories occupied in the course of that war.

None.

Zero.

Zip.

UNSC Resolution 242 stipulates that it is inadmissible for a nation to acquire territory by war. There exists no exemption to this; not in the case of a defensive war, nor for any other reason.

This is also not just a border dispute. It's about the worse-than-apartheid treatment of Palestinians, especially those in The Gaza, the slaughter of so many innocents, the frying and shattering of so many children, all without reasonable justification. They've even started back up the bulldozing of homes of anyone they deem to have committed offenses. Keep in mind, many Palestinians live in extended-family homes, and the offender may be only one of a large number who live in a compound that has been in the family for over a century. One example I heard about many years ago there was one son of one family in a large compound that included an orchard with centuries-old olive trees, all bulldozed without recompense. If this was done in pretty much any other country, the US and its people would be outraged and demand it stop.

Don't forget the war crimes such as bombing Palestinian hospitals. It's been what, five so far?

Israel is not the victim here. The Jewish people might have started off that way following WWII, but they are committing their own genocide right now.

A pretty good introduction to the post Arab Spring Middle East is The new Middle East by Paul Danahar. It goes country by country discussing the various groups at play in each, allegiances and conflicts, and gives a brief historical background. Our western media is a farce.

Willie71 wrote:A pretty good introduction to the post Arab Spring Middle East is The new Middle East by Paul Danahar. It goes country by country discussing the various groups at play in each, allegiances and conflicts, and gives a brief historical background. Our western media is a farce.

Farce is way too kind, they're essentially a propaganda machine, consistently painting a picture with little resemblance to reality.

Remember when ABC played a video of the horrible damage the Israelis suffered, but it was actually Gaza destruction the video showed?


This is a still from the video:



They really have to be swallowing their own Koolaid to be able to believe for even a second that those puny bottle rockets Hamas shoots over do such damage. Below are some sample pix of what these rockets typically are capable of doing. And it makes a lie about Israel defending itself, they're butchering them and also trying to demean, demoralize, and humiliate the Palestinians.





This has the label: "Devastation: An Israeli sapper inspects the damage in a house hit by a rocket " Devastation? The wall has some damage, some of the Israeli bombs, often our bombs, can take out a block.


If you're out in the open, in the kill zone of one of the rockets, if you 'hit the dirt', you've eliminated 95% of the risk of death.

Farce is way too kind, they're essentially a propaganda machine, consistently painting a picture with little resemblance to reality.

While I'd agree with that, I think it's a large step beyond to claim that it's all done with malicious intent. Stupidity and 'in-group' psychology accounts for the majority of it.

Spearthrower wrote:

Farce is way too kind, they're essentially a propaganda machine, consistently painting a picture with little resemblance to reality.

While I'd agree with that, I think it's a large step beyond to claim that it's all done with malicious intent. Stupidity and 'in-group' psychology accounts for the majority of it.

I think it's far more the 'in-group' psychology at work. I also think that this group-willful ignorance has long passed the criminal negligence standard for many of the journalists and politicians and reached the point where they're lying and they know it.

crank wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Farce is way too kind, they're essentially a propaganda machine, consistently painting a picture with little resemblance to reality.

While I'd agree with that, I think it's a large step beyond to claim that it's all done with malicious intent. Stupidity and 'in-group' psychology accounts for the majority of it.

I think it's far more the 'in-group' psychology at work. I also think that this group-willful ignorance has long passed the criminal negligence standard for many of the journalists and politicians and reached the point where they're lying and they know it.

I expect there are some quite distinctive national variations - the anglosphere is quite renowned for its heavily politicized 'news' outlets, but I doubt even Murdoch's UK or Australian connections reach the heady heights of Fox and co.

crank wrote:If you're out in the open, in the kill zone of one of the rockets, if you 'hit the dirt', you've eliminated 95% of the risk of death.

A great comfort to the families of those Israelis killed by such rockets, I am sure.

Strontium Dog wrote:

crank wrote:If you're out in the open, in the kill zone of one of the rockets, if you 'hit the dirt', you've eliminated 95% of the risk of death.

A great comfort to the families of those Israelis killed by such rockets, I am sure.

Probably about as much comfort as to the families of those Palestinians killed by much bigger, more potent rockets.

Not sure how that's relevant, except insofar as demonstrating the stupidity of taking on a better armed opponent, but okay.

Strontium Dog wrote:

crank wrote:If you're out in the open, in the kill zone of one of the rockets, if you 'hit the dirt', you've eliminated 95% of the risk of death.

A great comfort to the families of those Israelis killed by such rockets, I am sure.

Yeah, all 64 of them from 2000 until right before the lawn mowing of last year.

Strontium Dog wrote:Not sure how that's relevant, except insofar as demonstrating the stupidity of taking on a better armed opponent, but okay.

Because they are people, and just as Israeli families find no comfort in technicalities when their children have died, so it's exactly the same with Palestinians. Ergo, the only way my point could be irrelevant is if your post was irrelevant, and if that's the case, I agree - a pointless remark that has no bearing on anything and appears entirely tone deaf to other peoples' suffering.

As for the 'stupidity of taking on a better armed opponent' - are you saying they should just capitulate to their occupiers because of the threat of being killed? Is that how you'd roll if it was the UK being held by a hostile oppressor? Perhaps after 2 generations of such oppression, and the world doing jack shit to help them, they might possibly be considered to have explicit justification to take things into their own hands.

Personally, I wish both sides would stop any form of aggression and instead resolve this problem via internationally mediated diplomacy - but we've seen how well that works out many, many times.

Strontium Dog wrote:Not sure how that's relevant, except insofar as demonstrating the stupidity of taking on a better armed opponent, but okay.

So you're idea is they should meekly stand by and have their lands stolen, homes destroyed, their water stolen, their medicines and food blockaded?

crank wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:Not sure how that's relevant, except insofar as demonstrating the stupidity of taking on a better armed opponent, but okay.

So you're idea is they should meekly stand by and have their lands stolen, homes destroyed, their water stolen, their medicines and food blockaded?

If they'd just roll over and die, then things will go smoothly for everyone concerned!