Jump to content

Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states


Recommended Posts

Blimey O'Reilly! It jest rumbles on. Have te say, in the interests o' prolongin' debate an' stirrin' things up (objectively), the lack o' response te the man's points (Gibber) is, te an objective feller like mesel', a bit tellin', in this thread. C'mon, show the courage o' yer convictions, if that's what yez believe! Ye say, "I'm now takin' my toys an' turnin' my back, an' now ye don't exist. Boo-Yah suck!" like some o' yez seem te be is disppointin' te say the least.

 

An' before yez start, I've been kicked out o' Israel twice an' am - officially - no longer welcome, so it's not through a love o' the current government that I speak, but through a love o' free speech an' people sharin' reasoned an' rational debate, because only through such civilised practices, an' the exercise o' our brains in this manner, can we rise above our base origins an' strive towards some semblance o' understanding an' peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 749
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... through a love o' free speech an' people sharin' reasoned an' rational debate, because only through such civilised practices, an' the exercise o' our brains in this manner, can we rise above our base origins an' strive towards some semblance o' understanding an' peace.

 

This is a good point. I am sure that the majority of people in both Gaza and Israel would prefer a civilised solution to the conflict. Which century are we living in?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crofter,

 

The more things change (includin' the date), the more they stay the same. Someone once said we are not, an' never have been a truly civilised species, an' that all our achievements that might tend tae prove otherwise (language, music, dance, art in general, an' all those achievements linked te these - like Mr Da Vinci) are merely accretions o' culture, rather than evidence o' the oft-sought, rarely demonstrated, civilised behaviour one miht expect in our "enlightened" day an' age. :cry:

 

Bit depressin' maybe, but, personally, I find it a spur tae prove whoever the doomsayin' gloomy bar steward was wrong! :wink:

 

Ideas an' words are mightier than the sword, an' I truly believe that (or I'd go mad! Wibble!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no doubt Gibber will go through this lot and try to justify the massacre, or claim bias or whatnot, but there's no justifying an atrocity like the one going on just now.
Predicting a claim of bias isn’t going to stop me doing so

Peter made some strong points and provided his sources. Now, whether such sources are squeaky-clean or dodgy, is indeed important in many cases. For the particular points he is making above, their objectivity or partisanship is actually unimportant. He points out the outrageous US aid/arms numbers which are well known to be unspinnable. So, rather than respond to this extremely relevant and interesting issue, Gibber concentrates wholly on trying to move debate to the issue of bias. I would suggest that this serves to simply entrench positions rather than opening minds.

 

Assuming, for argument, that the charges of bias Gibber provides are true, does this change the actual points Peter makes? I don't think so. Can Gibber correct the figures (from his/her "unbiased" sources) and educate us as to what they indeed are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no doubt Gibber will go through this lot and try to justify the massacre, or claim bias or whatnot, but there's no justifying an atrocity like the one going on just now.
Predicting a claim of bias isn’t going to stop me doing so

Peter made some strong points and provided his sources.....So, rather than respond to this extremely relevant and interesting issue, Gibber concentrates wholly on trying to move debate to the issue of bias. I would suggest that this serves to simply entrench positions rather than opening minds.

 

Peter hasn't actually said anything, Peter has taken an article from somewhere (that may be biased) that he agrees with because of his already held viewpoint that is unfavourable towards Israel. I can give you cut and paste arguments from sources ranging from the liberal to the ultra-orthodox til the cows come home, that are pro Israel which, like you say, make strong interesting points and will have sources provided. Fancy wasting hours rebutting them?

 

I don't have the time to address Peter's article but as he mentioned me by name and suggested that I'm in the business of justifying masacres I responded to his post.

 

Often when competitively debating you have to argue a point you do not agree with. As I'm generally concentrating on the current Gaza situation, and putting in quite a lot of work doing so, perhaps you would like to look at "Peter's" points and genuinely try to argue against them. You know, so you don't get entrenched or closed minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter hasn't actually said anything,

:shock:

 

I responded to his post.

Correction: You responded to the aspect of bias alone.

 

Often when competitively debating you have to argue a point you do not agree with. As I'm generally concentrating on the current Gaza situation, and putting in quite a lot of work doing so, perhaps you would like to look at "Peter's" points and genuinely try to argue against them. You know, so you don't get entrenched or closed minded.

I really could not agree more. Indeed it is precisely the procedure I try to take when considering all issues. Trying ones best to put oneself in other people's shoes is invariably enlightening, and one of the best courses of action we can take.

 

BTW still wondering if you think Einstein et al. are as guilty of "hate crime" as myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose a truly proportionate response would be for Israelis to get hold of some antiquated not-very-accurate missiles and send them into Gaza from Sderot or wherever.

 

I take it you mean exactly the same number of missiles of the same antiquated type. Spot on, this is the perfectly proportional response an exact 1:1 ratio which everyone who cried proportionality should be overjoyed with.

 

But…this solution needs some ground rules though to maintain the proportional level playing field. Who supplies the antiquated rockets? If 1 supplier is used for both sides can a system of UN weapons inspectors be on hand to ensure the rocket suppliers are making each missile in accordance to a fair standard. If genuinely antiquated rockets are to be used (as in old, not just an old design) what sources are going to be allowed to tender for the supply contract and can they guarantee the effectiveness? What if a rocket fails to fire? Israel is obviously going to have better engineering support so may in a position to be able to repair a failed rocket where Hamas cannot. What are the prevailing winds in the area and do they affect these weapons in terms of effectiveness? Israel has more bomb shelters than Hamas, it may be the case that subsides are required to be given to the Gazan leadership to build protection for its citizens to avoid an uneven death toll, or subsides to cover Israel’s demolition costs if required.

 

If after all these and whatever other considerations apply are addressed but don't achieve an even score on each side can some form of handicapping system be put in place where at the end of each month the team with the least dead euthanizes that number of random human beings living within the range of the old rockets to make it fair.

 

Now that I think about it, why not do away with the unreliable, ineffective rockets altogether? Euthanizing 2.5 people per year on each side would eliminate all the variables of chance and is far more humane in terms of the psychological damage done to both populations suffering (but not outright dying from) the assault on the senses that is bombardment.

 

Perhaps through time both the teams could agree to increase the numbers killed to show how much they both really want to win. As long as the deaths are proportionate its alright isn’t it?

 

I think this was the guts of an old Star Trek episode.

 

Intent! The numbers are horrifying, that doesn’t mean the intent can be ignored. Why can nobody here that cries out disproportionate actually suggest what a viable proportionate response is? Is a negotiated ceasefire going to stop Iran arming Hamas? Will the people of Gaza be so enamoured with peace they will cause a change to Hamas’ reason for existence?

 

I think this is a very balanced article on the breakdown of the ceasefire.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Ethan%20Bronner%20December%202008%20gaza&st=cse

 

According to this crofter’s account is perhaps slightly skewed against Israel about the ceasefire’s failure (I too heard that Hamas may have been interested in renewing the truce although I cannot remember where and it isn’t mentioned in the article, in the end I think Hamas officially decided to not renew the truce but read the article it is very good at handing out blame fairly, in my opinion).

 

I think you are right (crofter) about the elections being a factor in the military action.

 

Regardless of whether or not the operation is justified, has it been effective? Rockets are still being sent into Israel after almost 3 weeks of intensive bombing and the best efforts of the IDF on the ground to prevent them. International condemnation of Israel has resulted. Moderate Palestinians are now more likely to support Hamas. A new generation of orphans prepared to consider a career as suicide bombers has been created in Gaza. Al Quaeda recruiters and other Jihadist organisations worldwide are rubbing their hands together in glee. Anti-semitism is being fuelled throughout europe and probably beyond…..What a crazy mess.

 

And I think these are all very good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be a proportionate Israeli response?

 

What the hell is is a proportionate response meant to mean anyway:

(You shoot me, then I'll shoot you, then we can off home for tea.)

 

An approppriate response might be better.

 

Peter has taken an article from somewhere (that may be biased) I can give you cut and paste arguments from sources ranging from the liberal to the ultra-orthodox til the cows come home

 

My go:

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

 

Force always attracts men of low morality.

 

The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.

 

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.

 

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

 

How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked to pieces than take part in such an abominable business.

 

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.

 

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

~Abraham Lincoln

 

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.

~Moshe Dayan

 

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.

~Congressman Ron Paul

 

Peace is constructed, not fought for.

~Brent Davis

 

Terror is a tactic. We can not wage "war" against a tactic.

~Ron Paul

 

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

~Groucho Marx

 

 

Fancy wasting hours rebutting them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But…this solution needs some ground rules though to maintain the proportional level playing field. Who supplies the antiquated rockets? If 1 supplier is used ... . What are the prevailing winds in the area and do they affect these weapons in terms of effectiveness? Israel has more bomb shelters than Hamas, ...

 

 

I doubt if Hamas need subsidies to dig shelters and tunnels. They are safe underground right now (or they are already abroad) while innocent civilians bear the brunt of the assault on Gaza. I do not blame the Israeli soldiers for the carnage - they are just obeying orders- (where have I heard that before?) but the hierarchy making the life and death decisions ON BOTH SIDES stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be a proportionate Israeli response?

An approppriate response might be better.

Quite so. I, for one, do not concentrate on what response would be proportionate, but rather on what is likeliest to prove ultimately positive. This does not mean that we can not point out how disproportionate the current Israeli action is. This is not a pedantic argument. The Israeli line continually being spread by their spokespeople tries to justify their actions as being proportionate. If this claim of proportionality is challenged there is no onus on the challenger to provide what would be proportional. That would imply that the very concept of proportional action is accepted as valid which is not necessarily the case.

 

My go:

Good stuff as usual.

 

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.

~Moshe Dayan

I can't help pondering this one. Seems to me that one of the mistakes taken by Israel over the years has been to not speak/listen to their friends, but rather to just one friend. I would suggest that talking to both enemies and friends would have served everybody better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Ethan%20Bronner%20December%202008%20gaza&st=cse

 

According to this crofter’s account is perhaps slightly skewed against Israel about the ceasefire’s failure

 

Not really.

 

“It did lead to a significant reduction in the number of rockets fired at Israel until November, but the truce had less impact on the goods going in.

 

Hamas stopped firing rockets, and there is evidence that they tried to stop other groups (such as Islamic Jihad) from sending rockets into Israel. Conversely, Israel did not ease the blockade on Gaza as they had agreed. Where is the incentive for Hamas to observe the ceasefire if Israel does not allow goods to cross into Gaza?

 

In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10.

 

According to the Israel Ministry Of Foreign Affairs, 8 rockets and 3 mortars were fired in August, 1 rocket and 3 mortars in September. In October, 1 of each. Just when things are about as peaceful as they have ever been for years, you wonder what the IDF is doing considering a raid into Gaza. Yes the 6 Hamas terrorists probably did deserve to die, but for what gain? November and December rocket attacks were right back up to pre-ceasefire levels and are still ongoing. If Israel really wanted to prevent rocket attacks they would have renegotiated the ceasefire in December and allowed some greater amount of humanitarian supplies to cross into Gaza. That would have been a win-win for civilians on both sides. In the present conflict there are no winners, except Hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...