Isreal vs. Da World

[Skins24]

74? (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=07052002-100713-2099r)


2 more things:

* Isreal stops it's offensive, because it's bad and not doing any good to the peace process. Plus the bombings have stopped. They let 'Fat go because...why hold him? Let him go so he can deal with the terrorist. Plus the bombings have stopped.
Few days later, suicide bomb kills 15.
Seems Isreal was doing the right thing after all. Who would have thought!?

* Jenin-
Poor Palestinians, poor Europeans, poor anti war/Israli activist.
Kinda feel sorry for them. It's sad to see something they really believed in blow up in their face.
Only 55 or 56 were killed not the hundreds they were led to believe. (33 Isreali soldiers also died btw)
So, 56 to 33. Oh yeah, that's a massacre alright.
Who started that mess? I know the European newspapers were all over it, but did they start the exaggerations?
Does anyone believe that the UN cancelled the call for an investigation because of Isreal's lack of cooperation?
Or was it because they didn't want to look stupid... :twitch:

[Mad Mike]

Let me start off by saying I have my beef with both sides, BUT...

There is solid evidence that Israeli soldiers used Palistinian citizens, including 13 year old children as human shields, waking them down the street, hands tied behind their back and resting their guns on their human shield's shoulders. By any measure this is a war crime.

There is only ONE WAY the US can win this "war on terroism" and that is to prove to the world that we are fair.

Does Israel have the right to defend itself and go after the terrorist? Yes.

Do they have the right to commit war crimes in the process? NO! And If we support this type of behavior or do nothing to punnish it or prevent it we are setting our selves up for even more hatred. One might even conclude that hatred was justiified.

[Skins24]

There is solid evidence that Israeli soldiers used Palistinian citizens, including 13 year old children as human shields
Solid evidence....
There was solid evidence that hundreds of people died, but...uh oh...they were wrong.
I'm not saying that's the case here but I would very much like to see this evidence before I go any further. I know there weren't any news cameras there, so if you have any still pics or anything...please share.

And please somebody define War Crime.
Because if that's a war crime, I would say more than half of the world's soldiers who have fought in any battle should be arrested immediately for doing worst things.

[gbear]

I keep reading more and more on this, and the more I read the more impressed I have been with the Israel's RESTRAINT.

55 confirmed dead, and most of them are believed to have been armed. Were there civilian casulaties? Sure. Is that regrettable? You bet. That being said, the geneva convention set some pretty straightforward rules for who is to blaim for civilian casualties. The people puting military targets in urban settings are to blaim. yes, a guy with a rifle firing it counts as a legit military target. So to my way of thinking, the palestinians fighting house to house, don't get to complain when the house they are in is demolished killing a few civilians. In fact, the complaint should be made by the Israeli's, "why are you making us endanger civilians?"

There was a letter in the NYtimes with a WWII vet recounting his experience. In paraphrased summary he said "We'd go up to a town with our truce flag and demand their surrender. If the flag drew fire, we'd head back to our artillery and shell them for awhile." Compare that approach to the Israeli approach that killed maybe 25 civilians. If Israel had been willing to, all it had to do was send in the bombers and level EVERYTHING. As it is, they took casualties to defend Palestinian civilians.

After all of the European and Middle Eastern outrage at the civilians killed in Jenin, do you think there will be as much outrage at Israeli civilians killed in this latest suicide bombing? After all, it's an equivalent number of civilians deaths. Where is the international outrage? Is an ISraeli civilian's life worth less than a Palestinians? Of course I think an arguement can be made that atleast Israel didn't target civilians in Jenin. Hard to make that arguement about a pool hall.

NIether side is blameless, but I know if I were Israel, there's no way I would release the known gunmen from Bethlehem only to have them return in 6 months. On an ironic note, have you noticed how many countries have stepped in to say "deport them to us." Nobody else wants the terrorists either. That includes the Arab countries that supposedly support the cause. Could it be that the methods used by these guys is only fine to be used in ISrael, but you wouldn't want these guys in your country? Hypocracy.

[Mad Mike]

No. There was never any solid evidence of hundreds killed. I don't know anyone who would claim that. As for the evidence I cite, I urge you to look for yourself. I know that I have seen enough to convince me. In one TV investigation the reporter got the same stories with no deviation from captives and witnesses (the same way police determine who is telling the truth). I watched as captives showed bruses where the guns were on their shoulders, they had loss of hearing from the guns being fired next to their ears. On and on.

I will also ask you this. Why has Israel been so adement about NOT allowing an investigation? Why where Israeli soldiers shooting at American journalists?

War crimes are defined by the Geniva convention. They include atrocities and violence commited against non-combatants. Things like human shieds. The reason for these rules is simple, it is based on simple human decency.

Yes, war is nasty business but using non-combatents as human shields in never justifiable. If you dont think it should be a crime, let me ask you this... What if it were you or your child?

Finally, let me reiterate that I am not anti-Israeli. I am pro truth. Sometimes the truth is not what we want to hear but it is still the truth.

[Mad Mike]

gbear: I know of no one who does not condemn suicide bombings and the targeting of Israeli civilians other than fanatical Palisinians and their like. But untill there is an independant investigation and as long as the Israelis block it. I refuse to take them at their word re: the human shields.

[gbear]

Mad Mike,

Those same geneva convention rules you mention are pretty straightforward about targeting civilians too. Suicide bombs?

Those same rules also talk about placing military targets in urban settings.

I'm not saying using people as shields is right. I'm just questioning why the world thinks only one side of this war has to obey the rules of warfare.

While Israel may have endangered civilians (probably did), I would also argue that the main point of the geneva convention is to keep as many civilians alive and unhurt as possible when nations battle. My challenge to you would be to find an urban fought battle in the last 20 years where fewer civilians were hurt. To me, that says volumes for the Israeli army making an unmatched in recent history effort to stick to the spirit of the Geneva convention even if they did violate some rules. Can you say the Palestinians have made a similar effort not to harm civilian targets?

[gbear]

As for an independant investigation, the HUman rights watch did investigate. Their results were published in the NYtimes a few days ago.

They found some evidence of people used as human shields. They found evidence that buildings were shot up (not sure if militarily in use or not). They did not find evidence of many civilian casualties. Nor did they think the removal of rubble would show masses of dead civilians.

Lest the arguement be made that the human rights watch is a pro US and thus pro Israeli group, remember that this is the same group against the slaughter in Somalia that the US did to get back a few rangers. This group has been openly critical of the US on occasion (and perhaps justifiably so).

[Mad Mike]

gbear: You said " I'm not saying using people as shields is right. I'm just questioning why the world thinks only one side of this war has to obey the rules of warfare. " WHO said this?
I have NEVER heard one civilized nation say any such thing. Certainly not any western nation.

As for keeping the death toll down I doubt it.

If israel had gone in, done what they had to do without using human sheilds, shown some compassion and provided humanitarian aid to the palistinian people as we did in afganistan there might have been some hope of ending this cycle of violence.

All I see is two sides killing each other and fanning the flames of hate. If the purpous of the Israeli action was to stop the bombings, it failed miserably.

[Zen-like Todd]

There have been a flurry of independent investigations from groups such as Amnesty International, all of whom have found NO evidence of a massacre. There never was any, and the whole incident was an absurd propaganda battle. The Israelis showed enormous restrained and exposed themselves to unnecessary risk in order to prevent civilian casualties.

Israel is rightly wary of the U.N., and believes that as an institution it has nothing but bad intentions for it. And if you paid attention, Israel wasn't against a UN investigation. They just wanted to make sure it wasn't jury-rigged with anti-israeli politicians who have no idea what urban combat is like and are completely unable to come to any rational conclusion over the events that took place. The U.N. didn't dig that. Interesting, huh?


Here is the result of Time's investigation into the incident.

http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

BTW, Mike... do you find it not in the least bit interesting that the UN has never even considered investigating the litany of suicide bombings in Israel for its connection to the Palestinian Authority?

But of course, its far more interesting when tear gas and rubber bullets are used to keep out interlopers.

[Zen-like Todd]

Mike, I just read your last post.

You are an idiot. Israel has shown more restraint than any other country in the world faced with far less serious circumstances. Don't be suckered in by propaganda warfare.

[Funkyalligator]

FYI-- A senior member of a Palestinian miltia that was captured stated that there was no massacre in the Jenin camp. Also he stated that some of the deaths of Palestinians resulted from booby traps they themselves had placed. An Israeli tank went down one street in Jenin and it set off 124 different booby traps. It is no surprise that these booby traps killed their makers and innocent civilians. This militia guy also stated that one of the booby traps caused a wall to collapse on a house killing several people. It seems there was no massacre and even the death toll might be a little hazy because some of them might have been killed by their own stupid mistakes.

[gbear]

Mike,

I find that I agree with you about it not stopping the violence except in the very short term(evidently already over). But heck, do you think we've seen the last terrorist attack from violent Islamic fundamentalist factions in the U.S.? Does this mean we shouldn't have gone after them in where we could identify them in Afganistan? Do you not think our bombing of Afganistan made us some more enemies? If that is what you believe, then you have not been following the news out of Pakistan for the past few months.

Israel believes the Palestinian government has sponsored/paid for/encouraged these suicide attacks. Heck, they have more evidence that Arafat's regime was at the least complicit in the bombings than the US released against Ben Laddin when we started bombing Afganistan.


Let's also be clear that Israel in Jenin killed far fewer civilians than we have with bombs dropped in Afganistan. They were willing to put troops on the ground from the beginning to avoid killing civiliians. This is something the U.S. was not willing to do. My hats off to their willingness to put the safety of opposition civilians ahead of their troops' safety. I don't know that I would do the same.

[Mad Mike]

TheChosenOne

I'm an idiot? Thats your argument?

Iv'e said with every post that I DON'T TRUST ANYONE. I want proof of everything. I condemn the palistinian attacks. But when a government fights against an investigation it raises a flag. If that makes me an idiot so be it.

Oh yeh, I guess I should respond in kind....

Nya, Nya, Nya

[Mad Mike]

gbear

You said "Does this mean we shouldn't have gone after them in where we could identify them in Afganistan? Do you not think our bombing of Afganistan made us some more enemies? If that is what you believe, then you have not been following the news out of Pakistan for the past few months."

ARE ANY OF YOU ACTUALY READING MY POSTS?

"Does Israel have the right to defend itself and go after the terrorist? Yes. "

Here's a little news flash for you as well. Israel makes a big deal about saying they did not bomb as we did and instead put their troops in harms way. Has it occored to any of you they had no idea wat to target by bombing? In fact when they have had targets they HAVE used air power via Apachee helicopters and killed civilians in the proccess.

And before somone goes putting more words in my mouth I am NOT saying they should not have done this. I am pointing out that Israel is conducting it's own propaganda campaign.

You people have wrongly acused me of taking everything the Palisinians say as gospel. Yet YOU seem to assume that everything they do is right and everything they say is the truth. So who is the idiot chosen one?

[Mad Mike]

Oh yeh. I missed one point.

Chosen one says " BTW, Mike... do you find it not in the least bit interesting that the UN has never even considered investigating the litany of suicide bombings in Israel for its connection to the Palestinian Authority? "

Gee Chosen, has it occored to you that no one doubts that the palisinian authority was involved?

And I'm an idiot. Riiiight.

[Zen-like Todd]

I guess I should retract the use of the word "idiot". Naive would have been a far less abrasive and more accurate term.


Gee Chosen, has it occored to you that no one doubts that the palisinian authority was involved?

That' example #1 of naivety. I can only assume that you don't find the conflict interesting enough to you to attemp to research the opposing viewpoints of the members of the conflicts and supporters on either side. It is in fact widely disputed in the Arab world, and among several European countries that the Palestinian Authority controls the "strings". It's rather unfortunate, but this is the case.

I think this is the post that pissed me off in the beginning.



As for keeping the death toll down I doubt it.

If israel had gone in, done what they had to do without using human sheilds, shown some compassion and provided humanitarian aid to the palistinian people as we did in afganistan there might have been some hope of ending this cycle of violence.

All I see is two sides killing each other and fanning the flames of hate. If the purpous of the Israeli action was to stop the bombings, it failed miserably.

The first sentence makes me think (hmm.. he ASSUMES they didnt make any efforts to reduce civilian casualties... reeks of bias)

The second and third show a lack of knowledge of the situation in general.

I suppose I shouldnt get so annoyed when I see things llike that, because I'm sure there are millions of people around the world who just peek into the open window of a situation, instead of making their best efforts to determine what is going on. It simply angers me when people proceed to make judgements based on that limited knowledge.

[Skins24]

Yet YOU seem to assume that everything they do is right and everything they say is the truth
I don't know about everything, but looking at past history......for the most part....uh..yeah.


has it occored to you that no one doubts that the palisinian authority was involved
So why no investigations of them!?
Seems very strange don't you think????


Finally, let me reiterate that I am not anti-Israeli. I am pro truth. Sometimes the truth is not what we want to hear but it is still the truth.
This is the middle east, who's truth are you listening to?

[Mad Mike]

That's the way chosen. Keep reading whatever you want into my posts and ASSUMING the worst.

Since my comment"Gee Chosen, has it occored to you that no one doubts that the palisinian authority was involved?" was in response to your comment... " BTW, Mike... do you find it not in the least bit interesting that the UN has never even considered investigating the litany of suicide bombings in Israel for its connection to the Palestinian Authority? " One SHOULD come to the conclusion I was speaking of the UN. However I realize that would not be as jucy a target for you to attack.

"The first sentence makes me think (hmm.. he ASSUMES they didnt make any efforts to reduce civilian casualties... reeks of bias) "

OR you could read the whole statement in context. Let me simplify it for you VIOLENCE BREEDS VIOLENCE. or if you still don't understand IN THE LONG RUN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED.

Now are you going to argue that the following statement is not true? " If israel had gone in, done what they had to do without using human sheilds, shown some compassion and provided humanitarian aid to the palistinian people as we did in afganistan there might have been some hope of ending this cycle of violence."

Note that I have NEVER said Israel should not have acted, only that they could have done better by using a carrot as well as a stick.

And how can you argue with this..." All I see is two sides killing each other and fanning the flames of hate. If the purpous of the Israeli action was to stop the bombings, it failed miserably." when another attack has already taken place.

I submit that YOU are naive if you think you can simply go kill a bunch of terroist, show no compassion for the palestinian people and not expect that you are inspiring more violence.

[Zen-like Todd]

Oy vey... I give him an out, and he doesnt take it. Here we go..




Since my comment"Gee Chosen, has it occored to you that no one doubts that the palisinian authority was involved?" was in response to your comment... " BTW, Mike... do you find it not in the least bit interesting that the UN has never even considered investigating the litany of suicide bombings in Israel for its connection to the Palestinian Authority? " One SHOULD come to the conclusion I was speaking of the UN. However I realize that would not be as jucy a target for you to attack.


IDIOT... (yup, I've now deemd you worthy of the title.) Would one not expect reprecussions if this was the case? Resolutions? Action? You are the only one here making absurd assumptions. Do you even know a damn thing about how the U.N. operates?



"The first sentence makes me think (hmm.. he ASSUMES they didnt make any efforts to reduce civilian casualties... reeks of bias) "

OR you could read the whole statement in context. Let me simplify it for you VIOLENCE BREEDS VIOLENCE. or if you still don't understand IN THE LONG RUN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED.
You are a fool. No wait, you are brilliant. That strategy of yours would have been great in WWII! Let's just let the tanks roll over Europe!




Now are you going to argue that the following statement is not true? " If israel had gone in, done what they had to do without using human sheilds, shown some compassion and provided humanitarian aid to the palistinian people as we did in afganistan there might have been some hope of ending this cycle of violence."
Note that I have NEVER said Israel should not have acted, only that they could have done better by using a carrot as well as a stick.

This is the statement that led me to believe you are naive about the situation. Israel constantly goes out of its ay to attemp to to consitute a peaceful Palestinian authority with which negotiations can take place. It is Israel who rescued Arafat from exile in Tunisia, and attempted help them build government institutions and a security force. This is so 100% not like afghanistan that its not even funny. Poverty doesnt have a damn nothing to do with it. Yo don't know a damn thing about the carrot, or the stick, for that matter. Like Afghanistan, eh? Where the U.S. showed FAR less restraint than Israel has, and killed scores of civilians?

And how can you argue with this..." All I see is two sides killing each other and fanning the flames of hate. If the purpous of the Israeli action was to stop the bombings, it failed miserably." when another attack has already taken place.



I submit that YOU are naive if you think you can simply go kill a bunch of terroist, show no compassion for the palestinian people and not expect that you are inspiring more violence.

Riiiight. Like you have any concept of the political, social, and ideological beliefs that frame this conflict. And of course, I'm sure you know all about the history of the conflict. Really, you're talking out of your ***, speaking of generic hypothetical bull**** situations which have no basis in reality, and even then are absurd.

[Mad Mike]

Rskin24
You seem to be reaching deeper and deeper to find something to attack with your last post.

I say I trust no one. You say you trust the Israelis. Fine Keep the faith.

I will continue to assume that when two sides dissagree the truth is usualy somwhere in the middle. That is a lesson that history teaches over and over again.

[Zen-like Todd]

And how can you argue with this..." All I see is two sides killing each other and fanning the flames of hate. If the purpous of the Israeli action was to stop the bombings, it failed miserably." when another attack has already taken place.

What planet do you live on? The attacks occurred almost daily previous to the military operations conducted by the Israelis. The terrorist infrastructure was dealt a severe blow. It is ignorant and foolhardy to assume that any operation of that nature will prevent any further attacks. 95% success does not make a failure. You are basically subscribing to the terrorist ideology. If a single person gets killed, we win!

It hasnt even come close to failing miserably. You are just making things up at this point. Failed miserably? Absurd.

Killing each other and fanning the flames of hate? An ideological war with the intent to wipe the State of Israel from the earth is being conducted. You feel free to sit in your house and posture about such things from the safety of your American home.

Your argument is basically. "Both sides are dicks, because they are killing each other. The Israelis must be more at fault because they have bigger guns."

I'm not going to argue with someone who doesnt understand what he's arguing about. Please, go do some research. Something... anything. Because there certainly arguments to be had on both sides, but you wouldnt know anything about that, would you.

[Zen-like Todd]

I say I trust no one. You say you trust the Israelis. Fine Keep the faith.

I will continue to assume that when two sides dissagree the truth is usualy somwhere in the middle. That is a lesson that history teaches over and over again.

Like in the Holocaust, right? Where was the truth in the middle on that one?

Arguing moral equivalence, and always assuming blame to be held by both parties without further investigation is ridiculous.

[Mad Mike]

"You are a fool. No wait, you are brilliant. That strategy of yours would have been great in WWII! Let's just let the tanks roll over Europe!"

HEY MORON, This isn't World War2.

I gave you an out buddy and you just proved that you can't have a discussion without stooping to name calling.

So be it. You cant even argue without contradicting yourself.

"speaking of generic hypothetical bull**** situations which have no basis in reality, and even then are absurd."

I reffer you to your first statement.

Morron

[Zen-like Todd]

OR you could read the whole statement in context. Let me simplify it for you VIOLENCE BREEDS VIOLENCE. or if you still don't understand IN THE LONG RUN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED.

That was your statement. It was made generically, in the same mannder of most of your other statements.

WWII was just an obvious reminder that your statement is simply and completely wrong.

I suppose you've nothing else left at this point.

[Blade]

Originally posted by Mad Mike
Iv'e said with every post that I DON'T TRUST ANYONE. I want proof of everything. I condemn the palistinian attacks. But when a government fights against an investigation it raises a flag. If that makes me an idiot so be it.

Mike, if you dont trust anyone, they why the hell are you so ready to trust the Palestinians word on having the Israelis use them as human shields?? Rather hypocritical of you...

To suggest such actions being committed by the Israelis is blatantly absurd for those who are familiar with the tactics long used by the PLO in thier terrorist actions.

There have been mulitple well known occasions of Palestinian children being brainwashed as suicide terrorists, parents willingly 'martyring' themselves without regard for thier orphaned children, PLO terrorists using thier OWN children as human shields, PLO terrorists targeting Israeli buses full of CHILDREN for sniper and mortar attacks, etc.

With this knowlege, dont you think it might be possible that those children were used by the PALESTINIANS as shields and only after they survived thier use as a shield, they were then turned into propaganda against the Israelis? Frankly, I find this FAR more likely.

And regarding the Israeli govt. 'fighting the investigation', did you read the above post as to what EXACTLY they had a problem with? They had no problem with the investigation itself, just with those who were anointed to carry it out (those with well known anti-Israeli stances).

There is a reason why Golda Mier made this statement 25+ years ago, "Only when the Arabs love thier children more than they hate us will there be peace..."

[Skins24]

You seem to be reaching deeper and deeper to find something to attack
Nah, propaganda usually rises to the surface pretty quickly. No need for reaching.




I say I trust no one. You say you trust the Israelis. Fine Keep the faith
I never actually said that but...whatever.
That would be some alliance though...if we didn't trust the Isralies and they didn't trust us.
We'd be allies through and through wouldn't we?

[Mad Mike]

Blade

Please show me where I said I trusted the Palestinians. What I said was ...

"I know that I have seen enough to convince me. In one TV investigation the reporter got the same stories with no deviation from captives and witnesses (the same way police determine who is telling the truth). I watched as captives showed bruses where the guns were on their shoulders, they had loss of hearing from the guns being fired next to their ears. On and on."

What I saw made struck me as truth. Claims of hundreds killed did not.

Perhaps I should have said that I have seen enough to make me believe it is likely to have happened. I stand by my statement that I trust no one. I want Facts. Untill there is an investigation there are no facts. I will leave it to the UN and Israel to work it out. I could care less how they do it I WANT THE FACTS.

I also said Israel could have done a better job of getting food and medical aid to the non combatants and that this would have helped to build SOME good will to combat the hate that Palisinians are taught.

I also said that Israel had every right to conduct it's operations in the first place.

What I seem to be guilty of in this forum is not towing the party line.

[Mad Mike]

rskin

You said "I never actually said that but...whatever."

Yes you did

"I don't know about everything, but looking at past history......for the most part....uh..yeah."

And as for....

That would be some alliance though...if we didn't trust the Isralies and they didn't trust us. We'd be allies through and through wouldn't we?"

You do realize that Israel has been cought spying on us don't you?

[Mad Mike]

"WWII was just an obvious reminder that your statement is simply and completely wrong. "

Gee, we must be screwing up royaly In afghanistan.

BTW has it eluded you that we also helped rebuild Germany, Italy and Japan?

Or the fact that Hitler played upon the anger over the state Germany was left in to rise to power after world war one?

Im wrong all right.

Any amount says I know more about the history of warfare than you ever dreamed of.

[Skins24]

**rskin

You said "I never actually said that but...whatever."

Yes you did

"I don't know about everything, but looking at past history......for the most part....uh..yeah." **

I was talking about the truth.

You:

Yet YOU seem to assume that everything they do is right and everything they say is the truth
Me:

I don't know about everything, but looking at past history......for the most part....uh..yeah

[Zen-like Todd]

"WWII was just an obvious reminder that your statement is simply and completely wrong. "

Gee, we must be screwing up royaly In afghanistan.

BTW has it eluded you that we also helped rebuild Germany, Italy and Japan?

Or the fact that Hitler played upon the anger over the state Germany was left in to rise to power after world war one?

Im wrong all right.

Yup, basically. Because both of those occurred after being pounded into oblivion. Israel is more than committed to helping rehabilitate the Palestinians, and in fact has done so in the past. but you wouldnt know anything about that. And of course you realize that Afghanistan is a completely different situation, with two sets of people involved. Interesting, we helped to rebuild the Axis powers AFTER they surrendered! I'm convinced you don't even believe the arguments you are making. Your proposals are analagous to one warring nation providing aid to the other DURING the conflict.

And BTW. The most recent example of "humanitarian assistance"? Iraq. Where all of the money goes to support the development of weapons of mass destruction. And that's not random posturing, it's backed byh a series of defectors who have delivered hard evidence that those programs are specifically being used to acquire materials for weapons development.

So yes, you are quite wrong, alright.

[Mickalino]

All I'd like to add to this thread is that I disagree with the title : "Israel versus Da World". I am completely on Israel's side, so it's actually "Israel and Mick, versus Da World"

[Glenn X]

Where's Kefka when you need him? :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Funny, I just watched an interview with an Isreali and a Palistinian in which they each criticised their own leadership. (Interesting that there are actualy Israelis who would aggree with me huh?)

Gives me hope despite the bozos on this thread who from the comfort of their home or desk call for the bloodshed of others.

[Blade]

Originally posted by Mad Mike
Gives me hope despite the bozos on this thread who from the comfort of their home or desk call for the bloodshed of others.

Mike,

I've just re-read this entire thread. There is not one post here of anyone calling for the 'bloodshed of others'. For gawdsakes man, READ THE OTHER POSTS IN THIS THREAD!

The only thing we've called for is some objectivity on your part. You just seem to want to believe anything anti-israeli that is reported by the media, regardless of opposing views.

If you feel like you are catching crap for not "towing the party line" its because you are in a party of objective & well-informed people who dont take kindly to those who are suckered in by propaganda.

[Henry]

Mike, if you REALLY want to read a pro-Palestinian viewpoint on this issue, read this thread. It may give you an idea as to why folks around here are so defensive.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7462&perpage=15&display=&highlight=israel&pagenumber=1

[Mad Mike]

Objectivity? Thats rich.

Re-read my freand. The only thing I have said is that Israel could have done a better job and deflected a lot of criticism by preventing their soldiers from using human shields and providing some humanitarian aid.

Virtualy every report I have seen from the reporters in the feild, right smack dab in the middle of this mess have shown evidence of the things I mention. Some reporters were even shot at (with lead NOT rubber bullets). An MSNBC news vehicle (clearly marked) was stopped, the reporters turned on their interior light so they could be seen and raised their hands in compliance and the Israely soldier opened fire. If it were not for the bullet proof glass they would have been killed. they had to run for their lives.

If reporters who were clearly trying to comply and surrender were attacked, why is it so hard to believe that innocent Pallestinien civillians were not treated with the same dissregard for human life?

Also. I have stated time and again that I condemn palistinian attacks on Israeli citizens. I agree that the evidence is clear that Arafat and the Palistinian athority suported the suicide bombing an I condemn them for it.

Pull out a dictionary my freand and look up the word objective. It means to look at both sides of an issue without bias. The only objective person in this thread has been ME.

I have said all along that Israel had every right to conduct the operation and go after the terrorist and agreed that reports of hundreds of civilians killed was BS.

[Mad Mike]

Henry

Thanks for the link. I agree with every sentiment in the thread.

It is understandable that people here are outraged by Arab sentiment. I am too.

However. I refuse to abandon reason and be rulled by emotion. The fact that I have been attacked as I have even so far as personal Insults by the "chosen one" is bull****. From reading some of the posts here you would think I had personaly ordered theplains flown into the twin towers and sent the palistinians bomb making materials. It has turned into a witch hunt. "Get that guy, he doesnt agree with every word we say!" Remind you of anything?

[Henry]

Mike, you have to understand that this thread was started as an expression of dismay that, despite the fact that there is a struggle in the Middle East involving two sides, the UN has chosen to condemn only one: Israel.

Your response was something along the lines of, well, Israel HAS done some bad things.

Whether you meant to or not, you just picked a side. Of COURSE Israel's hands are dirty, but the point here is that ONLY Israel is being condemned by the UN. Apparently, you agree with the UN and hold Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinians, which smacks of anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-Semitism.

If that's not your intention I apologize, but that's the impression I and others on the board are getting.

[Zen-like Todd]

Turning this thread back to its original point of discussion..

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1020867015739

That article discusses a UN resolution that decries Israel's acts. While a huge number of countries abstained from voting, only 4 voted against the resolution. One of those was Israel, and another was the United States.

So, you ask. Who are the two other mighty allies of Israel that took a stand?


The resolution, which is not legally binding, passed 74-4, with 54 abstentions. The US, Israel, Micro-nesia, and the Marshall Islands voted against the resolution

[Mad Mike]

Henry

It was never my intention to bash Israel. For what seems like the thousanth time let me say again that I support Israel's right to go after the terroists. How this can be taken as anti semetic is beyond me. I am a Christian but as a child I spent a lot of time at a Jewish community center, one of the best times of my young life. I enjoyed the culture and sang Jewish songs with my friends. I am most definitly NOT anti-semetic.

Look, as an american, if I criticise some policy or action of our government, does that make me anti-american?

My critisism of some of the way things were handled by Israel is out of concern that those actions might not be in the best interest of Israel's long term security. And yes I have compassion for INNOCENT Palestinians who were caught in the crossfire. Before somone else tries reading into my statements (again) I also condemn the terrorists who put their own people in danger by trying to hide by mingling with the civilian population.

Let me say right here and now that my intention was not to support the UNs stance. Maybe I should have clarified this from the start. If that is what has so many peoples panties in a bunch, I appologise for the misunderstanding.

On a one to one note. Thank you Henry for giving me some bennifit of the doubt. Your apology is most definitly accepted.

[TheKurp]

Okay, I'll jump in here. I'm not anti-Israeli but I have to believe that the current Middle East crisis would not be in it's current state of violence if Sharon were not the Prime Minister and IF he had not insisted on visiting the Temple Mount. He was warned before the visit that the Palestinians would react angrily and he ignored the warnings. Sharon is hated by Palestinians for his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre of Palestinians during Lebanon war. IMHO Sharon poured kerosene on this situation and then lit the match. I hope he sleeps at night knowing this.

[Mad Mike]

Navy Dave

let me start out by saying I salute you as I do all who serve.

On the other hand, for what seems like the thousand and first time, Let me say that I SUPPORT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF.

Where do you get the idea that I feel that they or we should turn the other cheek? If this was not your intention I apologise but it seems you are trying to lump me in with the hampster lover.

I have a cousin who was in tower two of the Trade Center. Thankfully he was on his way out and on the 4th floor when the second plane hit and made it out safe. I have another cousin who is a Yonkers firefighter and responded to the attack. Thankfully he also is OK. New York is like a second home to me (though I have no love for the Giants :-) and I still fear than my freinds and family there are in danger.

Let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR. I want no turning of the other cheek. OK?

[Skins24]

Micro-nesia?
Did Microsoft take over a country or something?


but the point here is that ONLY Israel is being condemned by the UN.
EXACTLY!
Even if the other countries didn't abstein. It's still a majority of 74-58.
Please show me where(since this began) they have come with a UN resolution condeming Arafat and the PLO and gang for PURPOSELY killing hundreds of innocents. You'd have to be blind to think him and his people are not involved. And I'm talking about something actually written, not just talk. Because...talk is cheap.

[Mad Mike]

TheKurp

Oh no! You done it now! ;-) I hope you know what you are in for.

I'm probably going to re start the attack on myself but I cant let your bravery go without support.

I agree. On one hand Sharon had every right to go to a place that was holy to the Jewish people. But the bigger thing to do would have been to step back and say for the good of peace and to show my (his) good wil,l I am not going.

Personally I feel that everyone would be better off without Sharon or Arafat. The two angry old men are hurting their own people with their personal hatred.

Let the flames begin.

[Mad Mike]

"Micro-nesia?
Did Microsoft take over a country or something?"

Give'm time....

Did you know that british citizens cannot access all of the governments Microsoft built web services unless they run Windows?

[Zen-like Todd]

Silly us for injecting reality in the situation.

Personal opinions about Sharon aside, there's a big difference in the roles Arafat and Sharon have played in the conflict, due mainly to the organization or lack thereof of the respective governments.

Sharon was put into power by the Israeli people shortly after Ehud Barak (whose election had been a HUGE expression of dovish intent by the Israeli people) failed to get an agreement at Camp David, even when extending promises that went beyond anything that had been ever offered, nay even conceived of being offered. Shortly after this, the latest intifada was announced, and the violence rose. The Israeli people had had enough, and decided that they needed someone in power who could better ensure the security of their people.

Elections will be coming up soon, and if Sharon loses his position, it will not be to a dove. It will be to Netanyahu, who is also on the right. who on some issues is further to the right than Sharon is.


This isn't a Rocky vs. Drago thing, despite intentions by some in the media to frame it as such. Certainly the two have a long history and certainly animosity towards each other, but the current conflict has nothing to do with the personal constitution of Ariel Sharon.



IMHO Sharon poured kerosene on this situation and then lit the match. I hope he sleeps at night knowing this.

No, that match would be the one used routinely by suicide bombers in outdoor malls, teenage night clubs, and pool halls. Sharon sleeps at night knowing that he is protecting the citizens of his country.

[Mad Mike]

Chosen

You want reality? Here it is.

Everything you said regarding history is true. However given the reality of the situation if Sharone had not visited the Temple Mount it would have done nothing to hurt the security of Israel. On the contrary it would have helped.

Help me here, I want to understand your position. Are you saying that since the Palestinians have not done all they could and inflamed the situation themselves that it's OK for Sharon to do something to make it worse? I mean come on! Not visiting the Temple Mount would have been such a simple thing for Sharon to do and would have shown a LOT of good will.

Here's your reality. The Israelis have two choices. They can continue to work for peace no matter how unfair or hard it is, or they can try to kill every Palistinian on the planet and when the rest of the Arab world gets involved they can try to kill all of them as well. It's not a pretty situation and it is not fair for the Israelis but THAT IS REALITY.

And if you do not believe that personalities have anything to do with making the situation better or worse you are being nieve and oversimplifying the situation.

[Terry]

Here's your reality. The Israelis have two choices. They can continue to work for peace no matter how unfair or hard it is, or they can try to kill every Palistinian on the planet and when the rest of the Arab world gets involved they can try to kill all of them as well. It's not a pretty situation and it is not fair for the Israelis but THAT IS REALITY.


I dunno. They could also pull back to defensible borders, pull out of the settlements outside those boarders, build a fence and no man's land around thos borders, and lock all the Palestinians out - leaving them to their own devices.

You say the Israelis can work for peace, no matter how hard it is. But making peace requires a partner, usually a willing one. At this point I see no momentum for peace among the Palesinian majority, no responsible leadership for those people, aand no honest broker with whom to deal. I also don't see a neutral and powerful external agency acceptable to both sides as an arbiter and guarantor.

The Israelis can't work for peace, because the time and circumstances aren't ready for it.

But they should work for a temporary solution that reolves their security issues in the meantime. They should build the same wall that the soviets built to separate east from west during the cold war - a 500 yard no man's land, triple fences, and checkpoints.

Those people aren't ready to come together. So they must be kept apart.

[Mad Mike]

Terry

I'll give you that one, though it isn't a long term solution and I can envision some militants building a catipult if nesssary to launch bombs across the gap. I agree that a wall may buy some time to cool things off though. I just fear that every action that inflames the situation now only serves to delay real peace later.

[Glenn X]

Terry, your Great Wall suggestion was seconded by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on Fox News the other day. For the forseeable future, it's probably the only viable solution to this conflict.

[Terry]

Yeah, I've seen it mentioned here and there over the last few months.

I first saw it mentioned in terms of the Israeli settlement on the West Bank. It was noted that even when the settlements are slap in the middle of a larger Palestinian enclave, there are no walls or fences around the settlements, and no visible means of security except settlers with guns.

It was explained that the original Israelis, who want all of biblical Israel back, do that because it symbolizes that they don't just own the land the settlement is in, but all the land. Locking themselves behind walls only reinforces the image of them being external to the land, not the rightful owners of al of it.

It's a stupid policy, becuase it's left them so vulnerable to Palestinian terror. Palestinian bombers can walk right up to a kibbutz, or one of the smaller towns and cities, walk in, and detonate their devices.

Yet apparently the psychology not to build walls is still overriding the broader security issues.