Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

User: Dr.Smart

Messages

Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-24 05:30:40

I will make a few clear, conscise arguements here:

The Hebron Massacre, as well as other violent acts from both sides, should provide evidence that a multi-ethnic nation was not possible as long as there was a minority.

If land ownership should be counted as actual population, nothing is wrong with the 48 agreement because the Jews were the majority on the land...do not cite land ownership as a problem if it doesn't matter and the only thing that matters is people calling the location home.

Also don't call the Jewish occupation the source of violence when violent acts have been occuring long before Israel itself, as well as laws against Jews in other Arab states.

ALmost every Palestinian school teaches kids to want to kill Jews, and kids TV shows also teach to kill Jews, and celebrating suicide bombers like heros because they killed Jews doesn't help either.

Removing security points in the West Bank and Gaza would endanger Israel because it allows enemy movement without relieving tensions...it is the violence from the palestinians and arabs which started the occupation, not the occupation which caused the tension.

Also there are cases of Israeli soldiers attacking civilian areas against orders, showing no reflection of the nation's feelings, jus the individual soldiers. Most bombings are aimed at military targets, often disguised as, or clustered within, civilian targets. Also when the military targets are to be removed, if any gound troops were to approach then civilians would stone, berrate, and provoke if not attack the soldiers.

Also the Palestinians have said time and time again that Israel has to demilitarize the area and pull back borders before any actions will be taken against terrorist groups (such as the Camp David Summit). This will only leave Israel vulnerable to a swift attack that could very well crippled Israel and leave it ready to be killed by any number of nations.

Also in Iraq, you might say they would love to see it split up...but quite frankly I would. Because the suuni's and shiite's can not seem to reasonabley live peacefully and therefore should be split up before one race takes control and cleanses the other.

House demolishings are aimed at terrrorists...you have to realize not having a military presence in the area would allow terrorists free reign and the ability to bomb and rocket Israel at will. If your best answer to how Israel is to defend itself is to end the occupation you are wrong, cannot offer a better alternative and therefore admit that Israel has to choose between itself and Palestine and the answer is simple if you are inside the conflict: survive at all costs. I don't f--king care what you say, Israel has the right to defend itself at all costs, moral and legal...just as any other nation does. Allowing terrorists free reign in the area is suicide, it would allow countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebannon, etc, to move in and surround Israel and destroy them. I would say the same for Palestine except that they have been offered reasonable peace terms too many times for me to say that they are looking for peace and survival.

You can't expect to declare war, lose, then get compensation for it. Israel had the right to defend itself militarily and still has the right to, until the Palestinians accept peace terms. They have the right to investigate civilian goods as long as militants disguise themselves as civilians, and have the right to mantain positions in a war zone until peace is agreed. Until Palestinian is willing to disarm BEFORE the end of the occupation or simultaneously there can be no peace, as long as Palestine demands actions which will destroy Israel, there will be no peace.

Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-20 19:25:49

So the Arabs would stick to an agreement? Just like they stuck to the Camp David Agreement?

And they weren't ever violent before 1948? I guess murders, riots, massacre's, etc...aren't violent...like the Hebron Massacre...just a little misunderstanding.

I get where you are coming from, but you are wrong. Things like the Hebron Massacre, prove that not only were Arabs violent to Jews making a bi-national state impossible when the Arabs are in powers...but it also proves a history of violence against Jews.

There is cause and effect, you have it backwards. The limitations of freedom come from violence, not the other way around.

Also if a rocket comes from a village and soldiers go to investigate and get stoned for being there...how should Israel defend itself? How? By letting its people die?

Also the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab control for close to 20 years.

Also, the supposed obsticales to statehood blocking the Palestinians never stopped anyone else. I put this as evidence that they are more concerned with the death of Jews then the rise of a Palestinian nation.

Also the use of 1 ambulance to bomb a hospital is more then enough cause for Israel to search all ambulances, especially since that driver admitted to doing it before.

Also the fact Palestinians hiding soldiers and bombariers in civilian areas is a heinous war crime, and puts them responsible for damages caused by using means nescesary for taking out the cells.

Also, you ignored my statement that land ownership in many surveys were done by counting renters and squaters as owners.

Also, note that MOST people in the area were immigrants.

Also, note that the estimates for pre-British occupation are done by looking at census' from the Ottaman Empire. Please note that the Census' areas did not fit perfectly into the area and some of the area's counted for them stretched outside of Israel, into areas like lebanon, where there were no Jews, inflating the Muslim and Christian figures.

Also note that some countries need to be divided, like Iraq shouldn't be one country because of the major culture clash, so giving the northern third to the Jews would not be some extreme measure, given that 80% of the Mandate had already been given to the Palestinians prior to any agreement to divide Israel.

Also, note that many Arabs moved to the area after the Jews because of the fact the Jews moved there and improved the area, making the immigrant Jews more local then the immigrant Arabs.

As soon as you can find a more moral way for Israel to defend itself other than blockades and having soldiers monitoring towns, please say it. And do not say to pull out, because we should both know with the evidence I have presented that such a move is suicide. Arabs have shown violence against Jews long before Israel.

As I said, Israel is not perfect and may do some immoral things, but many of them are in self defense. I can agree that the settlements aren't helping, but the governement has agreed to remove them if peace is agreed. And I know it seems ammoral to have checkpoints, but they are to try to stop the flow of weapons and explosives which are a huge threat and would be even more so if the checkpoints weren't there. No matter what Israel does the violence will not stop until the Arabs or the Jews are dead, or the way Arab children are raised changes (I really don't see how teaching kids that its Mickey Mouse's dream to be part of Jihad against Israel is helping anyone).

Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-20 00:22:04

Far from it, the Arabs outside Palestine wanted the Jews dead and the Palestinians wanted the Jews only because they improved the land and wanted them as second class citizens. THe Jews would either be attacked if they took power or powerless if they were the minority.

Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-19 02:17:40

I think with the the rejection of the Peel Commission the Palestinians gave up their right to call any division unfair. In this agreement (to which the Jews agreed) the Jews would get 1,900 of the 10,310 squar miles. Also, please note, post ww1 both the Jews and Palestinians were offered a state. The Palestinians got one, its now called Jordan. Historical Palestine is including Jordan.

So the Palestinians got 80% of the land and the Jews got nothing for a long long time, and now have to share the 20% with the people who got 80%.

Also Jordan Claimed the west bank and Egypt claimed gaza. Both pieces of land were offered (originally) in return for peace. THis agreement was never taken and the land laid unclaimed by anyone, including the Palestinians. THey sat on land on which no one took claim and didn't make a state. The Arab leaders themselves admit this.

Also in 1948 the Jews were the majority of the population in the land alotted to them, and in Jerusalem.

Also, on land ownership, the Arabs only owned, at most, 45% of the land. This high number is mostly in part because squatters on other people's lands were counted as owners, and people leasing were counted as owners, too. Also at best, with 8% being Jewish land...leaving 47% being British. THen Britain leaves, so 47/2 is 23.5....23.5+8= 31.5....pretty close to 1/3. But of course if you don't like just by ownership, then as I stated before, the Jews were the majority in the land they were given at the time of 1948.

But these percentages are skewed all over the place, including some sources putting British owned land as high as 70%.

So I have established a claim of the Jewish people to the land. So we shouldnt have any relapse into that.

http://www.likud.nl/extr185.html Ambulance bomb

http://www.aipac.org/The_Issues/index_11798.asp Abuses of humanitarian issues. Also included is a quoute referencing attacks from civilian areas.

As soon as it is acknowledged that terrorists use civilian infrastructure to carry out attacks, attacks into civilian territory and restricitions on the flow of civilians become justified. If your enemy moves with civilians, then you need to search civilians. When your neighbor Bob is mixing bombs in his basement, and soldiers come and blow him up its going to look like an attack on a civilian target. This is false. But when its the dream of almost every boy and girl to grow up to mix bombs in their basements, its kind of hard to tell which ones are really doing it. Also 80% of palestinians don't want Israel to be a state. This is the lowest percentage of all fundamentally Muslim states (counting Palestinians as a state). What does this mean? It means that the people oppressed by Israel want Israel to still be around in 50 years more than the people watching it happen. Conclusions? Yes, not many people want Israel to be a state, but obivously people closer to the action believe that Israel is better then people further away. From this we can conclude that if 20% of people who grow up watching kids shows which teach kids to want to kill Jews...maybe...just maybe Israel is actually doing something good? THese people who celebrate the death of suicide killers as a holiday like Israel better then Muslims who don't deal with Israel every day. Something to be said of Israel, in my point of veiw.

Also, the checkpoints are needed. Does America have checkpoints in Iraq? If you answer yes, then you are saying Israel's checkpoints are no less moral than the US at the very least, if not being more moral because from those points militants can rocket Israel while Iraqian terrorists cannot rocket the US. If you answer no, the you are a liar.

It is unfortunante that Palestinians abuse civilian cover. But that is a fact of life and causes Israel to have to act on civilian areas.

Edit: Also please understand that there is a difference in policy and core beliefs and the actions of individuals. THe Israeli government condemns soldiers who go too far and attack civilians on purpose...the Palestinians leaders order attacks on civilians.

Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-16 20:17:04

There are so many lies about Israel, so much falseness paraded by otherwise respectable organizations. Don't believe everything these supposed experts on human rights issues tell you.

There are too many ignorant people who are lied to by biased media for me to explain everything to everyone, it takes too much time. But, if you want proof that these organizations lie I can give you something.

There is evidence that palestinians have used ambulances to get bombs into hospitals, just as there is evidence that they use human shields (and if you use logic, more palestinian citizens would die then Israeli citizens if palestians used their own women and children as shields like they do).

The only reason you seem to miss these events is because the media does not wish to print them.

http://www.beyondimages.info/b146.html

I do not wish to say Israel is perfect, I merely wish you to see that Israel is doing the best it can to stay moral when there is no easy way for it to be at peace with the locals short of suicide. If you wonder why Palestinians are treated with such restrictions maybe you should see why they are imposed.

If canadians were coming to America for hospital treatment and one day sent a bomb with one of the patients...do you think America would let Canadian ambulances in anymore?

Also you refused to acknowledge the people pushing off peace are the Palestinians and Arabs. Never ever cite the 1948 agreement as the first agreement that set this whole war into play. The best deal offered to the Arabs, which the Jews accepted, was fair (giving the Jews only 1/3 of modern Israel, the northern third where Jews were historically a majority because of a few major Jewish communities). Arabs refused. Jews agreed. So no, the Palestinians have had oppurunities and generous deals and refused.