I am getting tired of the rampant anti-israeli comments on this board

[basketcase]

Where did you get thirty years of attacks on Jews, and at no time were there attacks on Palestinians by Jews?

Some prominent examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising

Where on earth do you get the 3 times more Jews than Muslims serving in world war 2?

If you read the link I posted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade

Despite the efforts by the British to enlist an equal number of Jews and Arabs into the Palestine Regiment, three times more Jews volunteered than Arabs. As a result, on August 6, 1942, three Jewish battalions and one Palestinian Arab battalion were formed. The Regiment fought in Egypt and in the battles of North Africa. British also wanted to undermine efforts of Hajj Amin al-Husayni who successfully drummed up Arab support of the Axis Powers against the Allies.

If you want information on the population of Israel/Palestine over the ages, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm is very comprehensive. It includes many facts from various census and surveys from as far back as the mid 19th century and statistical analysis absed on them.

It includes conclusions such as

. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. Analysis of population by subdistricts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs.

and facts like the city of Jerusalem had a Jewish majority from at least the turn of the century. It also includes an often ignored fact that during the 1920's, there were about 25,000 illegal ARAB immigrants according to the Brits. Judging by the at least doubling of the Arab population between 1896 and 1931, it seems likely that there was noticable arab immigration, not just Jewish immigration. It also discusses estimates of a Jewish population before the turn of the century around 75,000, a far cry from your few thousands.

But all of this will be meaningless to you. I guess you would also call my paying money for a condo as trying to bribe the owner so I could steal property from the tenent that was there.

Do you condone or condemn it?

In many threads, I have challenged others with this same question and clearly stated my view. Simply killing innocents is wrong. Most of my arguementativenss is based on countering claims that I believe are incorrect or one sided. You talk about Jewish terrorists and I respond with well known examples of Arab terrorism against Jews. I have never denied that Irgun/Stern/Lehi were terrorists. I disagree with your statement on Haganah. At the same time you have no comment on and seem to not be interested in the Jew baiting of the likes of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the riots that he inspired.

As I have said before, the Israelis who were were involved in terror activities disbanded their organizations and became solely a part of the democracy in Israel. I had hoped a year or so ago that Hamas being elected to control the Palestinian Authority would convince them to follow suit. Hezbollah has been willing to take part in politics but has never shown any indication of disbanding or integrating their anti-Israeli forces. That is the shame of the current situation and all of the allegations against Israel as a terror state.

 

[drrogers]

Finally I can agree with Natanhayhu

Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Bibi Natanyahu could get a good measure of satisfaction from his interview with the British Television this morning. I guess it can be attributed to his days studying history at Harvard.

The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)

Natanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?
Natanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children . Perhaps you have another question?"

 

[sorely]

Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Bibi Natanyahu could get a good measure of satisfaction from his interview with the British Television this morning. I guess it can be attributed to his days studying history at Harvard.

The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)

Natanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?
Natanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children . Perhaps you have another question?"

Natanyahu's comparison of Hezbollah to the Nazi's is pretty far-fetched. It certainly does not justify killing excessive numbers of innocents.

 

[basketcase]

I agree it is a bit stretched but both groups want(ed) to wipe out Jews. Admittedly, the Nazis were better at it (assuming Iran doesn't give Hezbollah nukes) but that might be because the "never again" idea is deeply ingrained in the Israeli psyche.

 

[Perry Mason]

Natanyahu's comparison of Hezbollah to the Nazi's is pretty far-fetched. It certainly does not justify killing excessive numbers of innocents.

He did not compare Hizballah to the Nazis. He compared the Israeli response today to the Allied response in World War 2.

His point is that war is not pretty, and you cannot measure the events with too fine a scale... events and situations constantly change and it is almost impossible to predict what is what is not excessive... the mistakes are discovered with hindsight, after the event.

Of course, the comparison could be made in another sense. Both hate Jews and seek to exterminate them.

Perry

 

[Ulyssses]

Natanyahu's comparison of Hezbollah to the Nazi's is pretty far-fetched. It certainly does not justify killing excessive numbers of innocents.

Wow, talk about missing the point. See Perry's explanation above.

Uly

 

[solitaria]

He did not compare Hizballah to the Nazis. He compared the Israeli response today to the Allied response in World War 2.

Perhaps you can compare the response but you can´t compare the threat. What you and that chicken hawk Natanyahu are failing to understand is the response has to be proportional to the threat.

 

[Perry Mason]

the response has to be proportional to the threat.

That may be, in part, true in contests fought under the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury or in domestic law, but in wars that are decided on the battlefield the winner always is the side that can deploy greater, often overwhelming, force... show me a war in which that was not so.

And in case you don't know it, the threat of use of force in that way is called deterrence... ever hear of it? Or that the best defense is a great offense?

And please tell me how you would respond to fanatical terrorism... particularly when your children and family are under attack...

Are you going to stop to carefully calibrate and assess the nature of the threat so that you can carefully measure your response? By that time you and all your family are dead... so the proportionality of the response is rather academic, isn't it?

Those who tempt a greater strength than their own always run the risk that they bite off more than they can chew.

Perry

 

[Ulyssses]

Perhaps you can compare the response but you can´t compare the threat. What you and that chicken hawk Natanyahu are failing to understand is the response has to be proportional to the threat.

That has to be one of the more absurd statements posted recently. Proportionate response? Where the heck did you get this from? So, what - when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was the US obliged to limit themselves to a "proportionate respose" - go bomb a Japanese naval port and call it even? Puhleeeze. When you are attacked by an enemy bent on your destruction you take steps to defeat them decisively. Period.

How an aggressor can possibly cry "foul" when the entity they attacked hits back rather harder than they would have liked is beyond me. How people like you can parrot that nonsense as if it is some universal law is even more baffling.

Uly

 

[basketcase]

Perhaps you can compare the response but you can´t compare the threat. What you and that chicken hawk Natanyahu are failing to understand is the response has to be proportional to the threat.

What direct threat did the people of Dresden and Hamburg present that required the fire bombing they recieved from the Brits and Americans? If you missed it, that is what "the chicken hawk" was saying.

 

[solitaria]

That may be, in part, true in contests fought under the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury or in domestic law, but in wars that are decided on the battlefield the winner always is the side that can deploy greater, often overwhelming, force... show me a war in which that was not so.

I think the point here is that it wasn´t a war until Israel made it one. Yes wars are won by force but everyone knows might isn´t always right to the civilized man.

And in case you don't know it, the threat of use of force in that way is called deterrence... ever hear of it? Or that the best defense is a great offense?

Do you think there are more Hezbollah supporters now or before Israel attacked?

And please tell me how you would respond to fanatical terrorism... particularly when your children and family are under attack...

You need to put the threat in perspective. While the terrorism is fanatical it is not a huge threat unlike say Germany was to the world. Also terrorism is a philosophy that you can´t defeat by force unlike a country that has physical boundaries and can be defeated.

Are you going to stop to carefully calibrate and assess the nature of the threat so that you can carefully measure your response? By that time you and all your family are dead... so the proportionality of the response is rather academic, isn't it?

Your mind is griped by fear not logic. Do you even know how many Israeli civilians have died since the rocket attacks by Hezbollah? I bet you WAY more Israeli citizens have died in car accidents since that time.

Those who tempt a greater strength than their own always run the risk that they bite off more than they can chew.

Could this be applicable to what Israel is doing in trying to destroy hate?

 

[solitaria]

That has to be one of the more absurd statements posted recently. Proportionate response? Where the heck did you get this from? So, what - when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was the US obliged to limit themselves to a "proportionate respose" - go bomb a Japanese naval port and call it even? Puhleeeze. When you are attacked by an enemy bent on your destruction you take steps to defeat them decisively. Period.

In reality you are trying to limit the number of future casualties by the actions you choose. It could be argued that with Japan more deaths would have resulted if the USA didn´t bomb it twice. That is the moral logic.

You can´t compare Hezbollah to Japan or Germany. For them to be a threat they have to have both intent and the power to act on it. They pose no real threat to Israel or not any more of a threat than drunken drivers do to the average civilian.

How an aggressor can possibly cry "foul" when the entity they attacked hits back rather harder than they would have liked is beyond me. How people like you can parrot that nonsense as if it is some universal law is even more baffling.

Thinking that the solution to life´s problems is to hit back harder than you´ve been hit is a very childlike response that shows a decided lack of intellectual and emotional development. The only thing that you do in the long run (which is all that matters) is to ensure that you will never run out of enemies that hate you.

 

[solitaria]

What direct threat did the people of Dresden and Hamburg present that required the fire bombing they recieved from the Brits and Americans? If you missed it, that is what "the chicken hawk" was saying.

None but what is your point? There is no good excuse for targeting civilians and decisions involving war should be made with the mindset of limiting the number of deaths needed to accomplish a relative peace. Israel isn´t doing that.

 

[Ulyssses]

It's real easy for you to sit nice and safe at your computer and dismiss as insignificant the threat posed by the rockets fired by Hezbollah at Israeli citizens. I guaran-damn-tee that you would be singing a very different tune if those rockets were landing in your neighborhood, near your house, near your kids' school, in the park where they play... The terroroist apologists like you would have us believe that these are nothing more than token fire-crackers.

Do give me a break.

Uly

Oh - and I'm still waiting with bated breath for your solution to what Israel's "proportional response" should be when neighboring states - whose leadership is committed to their utter destruction - commits acts of war. (And here, I'm hoping you're not fool enough to believe that the Lebanese government is in charge of anything. It could hardly be clearer that Hezbollah runs the show).

 

[LancsLad]

What direct threat did the people of Dresden and Hamburg present that required the fire bombing they recieved from the Brits and Americans? If you missed it, that is what "the chicken hawk" was saying.

Payback for Coventry.

Gotta luv Bomber Harris. Until the front opened in Normandy the air war was the only way to take the fight to the germans in Continental Europe.

 

[Ulyssses]

Thinking that the solution to life´s problems is to hit back harder than you´ve been hit is a very childlike response that shows a decided lack of intellectual and emotional development.

It's not how you solve life's problems, genius. It's how you win a war.

Uly

 

[basketcase]

What direct threat did the people of Dresden and Hamburg present that required the fire bombing they recieved from the Brits and Americans? If you missed it, that is what "the chicken hawk" was saying.

None but what is your point? There is no good excuse for targeting civilians and decisions involving war should be made with the mindset of limiting the number of deaths needed to accomplish a relative peace. Israel isn´t doing that.

I'll let you answer the question with your own words.

He did not compare Hizballah to the Nazis. He compared the Israeli response today to the Allied response in World War 2.

Perhaps you can compare the response but you can´t compare the threat. What you and that chicken hawk Natanyahu are failing to understand is the response has to be proportional to the threat.

The theat that the Lebanese civilians present to Israel is the same threat that the civilians of Dresden presented to the Allies. (of course, V2 rockets weren't being launched from the middle of Dresden so maybe there was less threat from these German cities)

 

[basketcase]

Payback for Coventry.

Gotta luv Bomber Harris. Until the front opened in Normandy the air war was the only way to take the fight to the germans in Continental Europe.

The same justification could be used by the Israelis but they don't because it wouldn't be productive. (or moral)

 

[bver_hunter]

Some prominent examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising


If you want information on the population of Israel/Palestine over the ages, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm is very comprehensive. It includes many facts from various census and surveys from as far back as the mid 19th century and statistical analysis absed on them.

It includes conclusions such as and facts like the city of Jerusalem had a Jewish majority from at least the turn of the century. It also includes an often ignored fact that during the 1920's, there were about 25,000 illegal ARAB immigrants according to the Brits. Judging by the at least doubling of the Arab population between 1896 and 1931, it seems likely that there was noticable arab immigration, not just Jewish immigration. It also discusses estimates of a Jewish population before the turn of the century around 75,000, a far cry from your few thousands.

But all of this will be meaningless to you. I guess you would also call my paying money for a condo as trying to bribe the owner so I could steal property from the tenent that was there.

In many threads, I have challenged others with this same question and clearly stated my view. Simply killing innocents is wrong. Most of my arguementativenss is based on countering claims that I believe are incorrect or one sided. You talk about Jewish terrorists and I respond with well known examples of Arab terrorism against Jews. I have never denied that Irgun/Stern/Lehi were terrorists. I disagree with your statement on Haganah. At the same time you have no comment on and seem to not be interested in the Jew baiting of the likes of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the riots that he inspired.

As I have said before, the Israelis who were were involved in terror activities disbanded their organizations and became solely a part of the democracy in Israel. I had hoped a year or so ago that Hamas being elected to control the Palestinian Authority would convince them to follow suit. Hezbollah has been willing to take part in politics but has never shown any indication of disbanding or integrating their anti-Israeli forces. That is the shame of the current situation and all of the allegations against Israel as a terror state.

Two years of separate incidents, and Jabotinsky the Jewish organiser was jailed for 15 years for incitment. All the same I condemn the killings of innocent Jews. In 1936, 5000 Arabs were killed in the general strike (legal to have a strike). They were killed by the Haganah who were working in close co-operation with the British. Far cry from the 30 years that you claim.


Fact is the population of the jews in Palestine (not only Jerusalem) was 6% in 1900. At the time of the British withdrawal, it had swelled to 650,000 of practically all illegal immigration. Compare that to the puny 25,000 Arabs that you claim immigrated illegally. Even the British were powerless to stop this very organised exodus into Israel, financed by the American Jews.

Off course I denounce the Mafti and think that they were a Nazi organisation. Their leader should have been returned to the Balkans to stand trial for war crimes. However, remember that the Jews were deliberately inciting a lot of hatred against them, by publicly claiming the land of Palestine for themselves. Haganah were involved with the killings of so many Arabs as mentioned above and Lehi deliberately broke away from Haganah to use the authority that the British mandated to Haganah, to exact revenge killings against the Arabs. Sure the terror organisations disbanded after Israel was formed. All their crimes were forgotten as well, including that of Menachim Begin who the Israelis had the audacity to elect as a Prime Minister, and then have the gall to say that the Palestinians have a terrorist leader in Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians did not have a nation to form an army themselves.

Hezbollah again were formed after rampant Israeli aggression into Lebanon, and the massacres after that. The proxy armies of Israel i.e the South Lebanon Army massacred thousands of Muslims. Again you have no comment about the massacres in the camps or by the SLA. The numbers of victims even exceededa 911, and that is horrific. Unfortunately, Israel will always take no responsibility for that, and instead say that they are democratic country. How and why in those circumstances can you expect Hezbollah to disarm? Especially now that they halted the Israeli army in it's tracks. That's why i am saying that the only solution should be a Palestinian Independent State, co-existing with Israel, and not a fudged solution that Israel will only accept.

 

[basketcase]

The Jewish terrorists were strongly opposed by the mainstream. In order to form a single government, they were pardoned of their crimes because without this, there is no way that a stable government could be formed.

I would expect that the same would be offered to Hezbollah and Hamas, although they are already heros to much of their population so there might not be the need.

Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority both need to make deals with there respective militants in order to disarm them and create stability. I would have no expectation of true peace with either party without this being done. I guess that the UN agrees with me in Lebanon at least (not that that means anything).

the only reason hezbollah has halted the IDF is because the Israelis are trying to minimize civilian deaths. If they didn't care, South Lebanon wouldn't have a single building still standing.

(Oh, an appology, I've been spelling Lebanese wrong this whole time)