And if you come across a road traffic accident on a lonely country road - do you just continue on your way muttering "It's none of my business"? What about if you see someone abducting a child..."None of my business"?

That would be a hell of a society to live in, huh?

It wouldn't be much different than it is today.

And if you come across a road traffic accident on a lonely country road - do you just continue on your way muttering "It's none of my business"? What about if you see someone abducting a child..."None of my business"?

That would be a hell of a society to live in, huh? </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I guess I am wrong, but wasn't it you that was condemning the USA for sticking it's nose in everyother countries business? I apologize if that has not been your stance previously.....I just want to point out that you can't have it both ways.
</font>

Look, if we can pull Saddam out of Kuwait, we can sure as hell pull Israel out of Palestine. If we can partition and keep apart Turkish and Greek cypriots, we can darn well do the same with Israel and Palestine. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Huh... Skunk, in case you haven't read about it, Sharon is in the process of doing just that. He's building a wall around the West Bank. Of course, he's doing it on Palestianian land. Give him a year and it will probably be done.

It wouldn't work. Although the Palestinian suicide bombings would stop there wouldn't be a Israel to "enjoy" it. If this scenario should happen Israel would soon find several hostile armies marching against them. Probably one from every arab country in the world. ;) Now where it the other way around, Palestinians erasing Israel, we would probably ahve peace in the region. ;) But let's hope none of this will ever happen.

And Welcome back MagiK. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] *hugs*

<font color=orange>Willow, you forget the history of all the conflicts Israel has fought in since it's inception. In EVERY case they have had to fight multiple armies and in EVERY case they have won HUGE victories!!! There is nothing to suggest that the next war will be any different. The US just crushed the largest army in the region, quite easily. The Israeli Army is perhaps the only Army that is better trained than we are. And they are just as bloodied.

Like Sir T said, the Israeli's are ready and willing to crush ANY Arab army that marches against them. The Arabs know this too, they found out the hard way, and i don't see them try anything like that again in the near future. But Israel's problems would not be solved if there weren't any Palestinians around anymore, it goes way beyond that. there isn't a single Arab nation who wouldn't jump on the Israeli's when they catch them off guard. As long as the Arabs don't recognize the state of Israel legitimate, the misery will continue. tolerance is what this region needs, but i don't think any of the involved parties has ever heard of that word.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Thanks for the welcome..but I have to ask you.....

What invading armies would be destroying Israel?? Would those be the same massivly huge armies as the ones that three times the Arab League attacked them with before? They got their behinds handed to them the last couple of times they tried to "Push the Jews into the ocean"....

It is really remarkable (in my opinion) that Israel hasn't just said "awww Screw it" and wasted every Arab within 500 miles of their borders. Yeah the rest of the UN would pooh pooh them and propose and perhaps actually enforce sanctions against them...but as we have seen, the UN is pretty much all talk and no do. Heck it would probably take them 5 years just to figure out what seating arangement to have at the meetings to enforce the sanctions to use.

Ok Im being silly about the UN, but in the last 30 years they have yet to impress me in any way.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You have to remember, the reason they have the land ont he west bank and the gaza is because they kicked the booty of the surrounding nations armies which attacked them. They took the land to create a buffer zone around Israel proper so that any future attacks would/could be met on (in theory) someone elses property.

As I mentioned in my original post here that TL misstated.

Hell Israel had captrured all of the Gaza all the way to the Suez Canal and had the US (and UN) not restrained them..they probably could have seized all of Egypt because they had completely defeated most of the real egyptian army.....instead the US and others convinced Egypt to declare a peace with Israel...I think they are the only Arab nation to do so.

</font>

[ 08-21-2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

It's not that they had much of a choice MagiK, it took the Israeli's only a few hours to destroy the entire Egyptian airforce. When you're in a situation like that, you don't have much to negotiate with. :D

TL didn't misstate anything. And, he unfortunately had a post deleted somehow.

Since the LON came along, and on into the UN, there is no right of conquest. It is not a valid way to expand borders or add colonies any longer. It is illegal. The three buffer areas are illegal, and Israel has been reprimanded. The only real problem is no one will enforce the Rule of Law here.

Call them buffers, call them occupied territories, call them what you will -- but they are NOT Israel. Besides, buffer... pffft, really? Yeah, the buffer is the tail wagging the dog, in case we hadn't noticed. Israel would do much better with a tightly-controlled border, keeping Jews and Palestinians each to their land. But, they want the LAND -- it is a LAND GRAB. It is unseemly, deplorable, and if the Palestinians had lighter skin people just might care.

You are quite correct. But if Israel should commit a massive genocide, EVERY arab nation, and there are plenty of those, would react. Sure Israel could probably handle Syria, Jordania and possibly Egypt at the same time. But if this scenario should happen I bet that Turkey would react, and Turkey have a slightly more modern army than the ones previously mentioned. Not to mention that you have to count in several former Sovietunion countries as well as several nations in the pacific (it is the pacific right? Or is it the Indian?)... Israel might be able to handle 3 countries but what if 20-30 were to invade? Oh and don't forget Pakistan. They really have some nasty weapons they wouldn't hold back on. ;)

Why would the surrounding Arab countries send regular armies then? They could just let 'freedom fighters' pass the border to help the Palestinians, secretly backed up by their respective goverment. The current situation in Iraq shows how effective guerilla warfare can be. Experts believe that some of these terrorists are non-Iraqis who entered the country after the fall of Saddam's regime.

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>Pakistan may have nukes, but I bet Israel has more! I dare say that if Israel saw a massive build up on their border; a build-up that they didn't think they could stop. Then they would use nukes to stop that build up.

As far as Freedom Fighters go, most of the damage to our forces in Iraq, have been pin pricks at best. If they really want to do some damage they need to escalate the American casuality rate to something like 20 a day to start equaling our causalities we took in Vietnam. We didn't average that kind of casualty rate during the ground war.

I think Israel could handle anything that a "Freedom Fighter" army could throw at it. After all they've been handling this kinds of attacks for quite sometime. I also don't think that a "Freedom Fighter" Army would have the necessary discipline needed to take on a decent military force. Think of the language barrier such an army would have. Plus just go back and ask all those Freedom Fighters that died in Hebron at the beginning of the latest occupation by the Israelis. They are a "dead" example of what I am talking about.

[ 08-21-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Isreal has not done anything that has actually stopped the resistance. The smartest move either side can make is to remain committed to a peace process and continue to discredit attacks on civilians that don't qualify as "collateral dammage"..ie. terrorist attacks.

The possibility of a conventional military victory against determined guerilla and/or terrorist resistance is slim. We supposedly did this in Afganistan...well news from over there the last few weeks and over the last 1+ years suggest the restistance is no where near defeat and maybe even more dangerous a a snake in the grass.

I am of the opinion it is a pipe dream to believe that military actions will ever end the violence that has been going on going on in Isreal and now in Iraq, but I do beleive that violence begets violence so I may be a bit biased.

The problem with using nuclear weapons close to home is that the fallout drifts where the wind takes it - so using nukes on its neighbours would be like peeing into the wind...

So Israel wins the right to radioactive land - that would be a hollow victory, wouldn't it?

And Israel is all but bankrupt as a result. Had it not been for the enormous funding provided by the US, Israel would be in economic ruins. Israeli GDP has dropped by more than 7% for two years in a row, shares listed on the Telaviv stock exchange have dropped in value by an average of 15%, the tourist industry has dramatically shrunk, the shekel has seen a huge devaluation against the dollar, unemployement rising from a decent 6% to 10% (and expected to reach 13% by the end of the year)...Then there is the damage caused by the bombs and the costs of keeping a huge standing army...need I go on?

You don't have to win a military battle to defeat a country - killing its economy amounts to the same thing...

[ 08-21-2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

You are quite correct. But if Israel should commit a massive genocide, EVERY arab nation, and there are plenty of those, would react. Sure Israel could probably handle Syria, Jordania and possibly Egypt at the same time. But if this scenario should happen I bet that Turkey would react, and Turkey have a slightly more modern army than the ones previously mentioned. Not to mention that you have to count in several former Sovietunion countries as well as several nations in the pacific (it is the pacific right? Or is it the Indian?)... Israel might be able to handle 3 countries but what if 20-30 were to invade? Oh and don't forget Pakistan. They really have some nasty weapons they wouldn't hold back on. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't worry about that. Turkey and israel are good buddies. Turkey may be islamic, but they're not blind either. besides, Turkey wouldn't risk burning their hands on this, they're NATO members. Turkey thinks economic, not Jihad.

Israel plays by the international laws, they COULD have taken over their enemies lands and everything that comes with it. Then they wouldn't be bankrupt, as you claim they are. But they didn't, while they had every right to do so. Do you think it's odd that Israel is struggling financially ? They are completely surrounded by extremely hostile nations. Would you invest in tourism if you were in the Knesset ?

Why would the surrounding Arab countries send regular armies then? They could just let 'freedom fighters' pass the border to help the Palestinians, secretly backed up by their respective goverment. The current situation in Iraq shows how effective guerilla warfare can be. Experts believe that some of these terrorists are non-Iraqis who entered the country after the fall of Saddam's regime. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Tanks and planes or Guerilla tactics. I think Israel could handle either. They have Speical Forces that rival or even surpass the SAS and Seals. Sayeret Duvdevan, for example. </font>

The problem with Nukes is without a delivery system they are just big paperweights ;) Israel has several delivery systems, the best Air Force on the planet, sorry USAF, and meduim range ballistic missles. IIRC they were working with the South Africaina in the early 80's and had test fired a missle that was capitable of hitting Moscow. Knowing the Israelis and their scienists, they can use a slide rule like most countries use super computers [img]smile.gif[/img] , their missles would be acurate enough to hit anything in range.

<font color = lightgreen>I still say step back and let the two sides fight it out. Israel will win and then they will have to live with the consequences of their victory. Since they won't listen to reason, let them listen to their conscience (assuming they have one); unfortunately, Israel would probably be able to rationalize almost any action. They're both insane.</font>

Just between you and me, I'll share a small secret with you.


In 1964 Israel began diverting *massive* amounts of water from the Jordan river into the Negev Desert. This action threatened the very survival of half of the Syrian countryside (water being a somewhat valuable asset in a arid region).

Syria, realising that it faced a potential catastrophe on an epic scale appealed to Israel to stop the work. Israel refused.

Syria responded by quickly beginning its own work on the river to prevent the loss of water that would have been caused by the Israeli work. Israel responded to this with military strikes at the Syrian waterproject site. A small border conflict ensued which lasted until:

1967 - Eygypt realising that the small states of Syria was about to be destroyed decided to impose sanctions and to forbid any ships bound to or leaving Israel from entering its territorial waters (its sovereign right).

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Dayan publicly stated to Egypt, Syria and Jordan (who was also losing water as a result of Israel's water project), that a diplomatic solution could be found and that war, far from being inevitable was unlikely and that he would *not* launch a first strike.

Eygyt, Syria and Jordan reacted by scaling down their troop activity on the borders of Israel when suddenly (and without warning), Israel launched a massive and simultaneous airstrike on all three countries destryong more than 300 Eyptian, 50 Syrian and 20 Jordanian aircraft while they were still on the ground.

Israel then launched a ground offensive on to the territories of those countries and routed their troops who were now without air support. At the end of the conflict, Israel refused to hand back the territory that it had seized from them.


Now, you are right in thinking that Israel was not breaking international law by building the water project - although it was a provocation that would inevitably lead to war. Without water, not only do people die, but so does their agriculture - Syria and Jordan *had* to react or die of thirst.

On the other hand, the attacks on its neighbours was unquestionably both illegal and without any justification. There was *no* need for Israel to 'Pearl harbour' its neighbours - it was a murderous act outside international law.

Since 1967, Israel has repeated violated international law in the way that it suppresses the Palestinian people. It has seized their land, evicted them from their homes, used the military against civilians, engaged in collective punishment, instigated racist laws... the list is endless and puts it almost on a par with the way that Saddam Hussein treated the Shi'ite population.

It is not for nothing that the UN made 65 resolutions calling for Israel to return to international law. Had it not been for the US's vetos of further resolutions, that list would number more than a hundred! (Which makes Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like a really nice and innocent little country).

[ 08-22-2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Oh, i'm sorry, i didn't know that those poor innocent Arabs were so oppressed by those evil Israeli's. Nice historical facts you have there Skunk, but aren't you forgetting something ? You're taklking about the sixties, but do you remember the first years of the state of Israel ? When they were invaded by the combined forces of no less than 6 Arab nations. Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Israelis.

I'd say that must have given them a feeling they were not very welcome in the region, don't you think ? If the israeli's are coming down hard on the Arabs, they have brought it on themselves. They were the ones who opened fire, the Israeli's only returned the favour.

True, but if Israel has already killed every Palistinian man, woman & child who would they take reprisals against?

My solution:

Take the first born son of every Palestinian family and execute them!

No, wait, that's been done before somewhere.

I know - let's have "The Final Solution", genocide on a scale not seen since the 1940's. Now that would be "The Final Irony"

nice [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well I never saw your deleted post unfortunately and in the post that I DID see, you were acting like I said that the "Buffer Zones" were legal and all I said was that the land they hold from the LON and UK is theirs legally....and I never said that their creating a buffer zone was "legal" just understandable after what they went thru. If I were to start killing off your family one by one and attacking you i your home...Im pretty sure you would create your own "buffer zone" to protect them the "law" be damned.

I am also not claiming any moral or other kind of superiority on the israeli side of things....just stating that If I were them, I would do the same thing wether distant nations agreed with it or not. No one likes to have to fight a battle on his home soil. As for the "World" not caring because of the Palistinian skin color...I think thats complete and utter nonsense.
</font>

[ 08-22-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Nice history lesson Skunk [img]smile.gif[/img] you forgot to mention WHY Israel was taking the water and diverting it to the Negev....it was so they could survive. The land that Israel received from the LON and UK was not the land they were promised but instead barren waste lands..they were forced to divert water in order to grow food to live. So facing starvation themselves or letting soemone else worry...they chose to live. Again a completely understandable situation. I also believe that Syria was a little less...."Innocent" than your post would have us believe. I recall several slaughters of innocent civilian communities on the border that had no military value whatsoever.
</font>

But what Skunk's post does prove is that both sides are guilty as h--l! I wonder how many sentences we could end up with in a trial. ;)

Abbas is doing what he can. Arresting the military extremists is a good start. Now if only the Israel leaders just became a little less trigger happy.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Trigger happy hmmmmm...ok how many innocent men women and children are permitted to be killed and maimed before they have a right to strike back?

I suppose your number would be quite a lot higher than mine. I loose any sense of need for restraint after the first bus load. How many bus loads should they wait for before striking back?

This may sound like Im being sarcastic...but Im not, it is a serious question. How many of your citizens should you be willing to sacrifice before retaliating? It is a good question.

As for the trial idea...would be an interesting idea. But I believe that the whole thing would have to revolve around which nation/nations attacked which first...and since the Arab League attacked first about 1 hour after the Nation of Israel was created....we have the answer to the chicken and egg thing here....

</font>

[ 08-22-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

And what's more, the Jews didn't go there looking for a fight. They were on the run for the Nazi's and Stalin's regime, and they were nowhere safe in the rest of Europe as well. They thought they were going to the promised land, and finally could live their lifes in peace. And what did they find ? Hate, hate, and more hate.

Well, the jews got sick and tired of running and decided to take no more shit from anyone. If it was up to the arab league, there wouldn't be a single Jew alive in the region, but unfortunately for them the sheep turned into a tiger. Mess with the Israeli's, and you'll pay a heavy price. All Arabs know that by now.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Trigger happy hmmmmm...ok how many innocent men women and children are permitted to be killed and maimed before they have a right to strike back?
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I wonder how the general American viewpoint on this matter became that the Palestinians are guilty of everything whereas the Israelis only responds. ;) IIRC it's the other way around in Europe.

What I meant MagiK was nothing of the kind you were thinking. It's not enough for one side to back down. Both sides most do that. So if the Israelis hadn't killed the Hamas leader right after the Palestinian bomb, but let The Palestinian arrest those responsible for the attack and then have them deported to Israel, there wouldn't be as many retaliation bombing that now once more will come from the Palestinians. ;)

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00"> Israel usually gets a few women and children in the crossfire turning normally complacent family members into seeking revenge. That is what usually happens when you use assault helicopters on busy streets to get one person. No justification from the bombers or Israeli army if you ask me. They are both guilty. </font>

[ 08-22-2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

The Arab-Jewish conflict is much older than that. They have been fighting for several centuries now.

But I agree with you that the Jews were not looking for a fight when deported after WWII. And I also believe there could have been better solutions 60 years ago. ;)

I know that willow, the Jews have always been slaves. That goes back to the days of the pharaoh's. They haven't exactly walked an easy path over the centuries, but now they finally have a state of their own. And they protect it by all means necessary. I know they also hurt a lot of innocent people with their actions, but from their point of view, i can fully understand they won't take any risks. I myself have deep respect for the Israeli's and their determination to overcome any obstacle. Even for the assasination of terrorists who were hiding in "safe havens" in Europe in the seventies and eighties. There's no place on earth where a terrorist is safe when he's on their list.

In the nineties there were a few violations of Jewish graveyards in (of all places) Germany. Neo Nazism was florishing once again. But the Israeli sent out a little message to the German government, that if they didn't take care of these outrages, the Mossad would do it for them. You better take such a warning very serious, for they WILL come for you. The Germans got the message and things became relatively quiet again. You gotta admire that attitude. I do.

"Always been slaves" - don't think so! Been persecuted - yep!

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Trigger happy hmmmmm...ok how many innocent men women and children are permitted to be killed and maimed before they have a right to strike back?
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I wonder how the general American viewpoint on this matter became that the Palestinians are guilty of everything whereas the Israelis only responds. ;) IIRC it's the other way around in Europe.

What I meant MagiK was nothing of the kind you were thinking. It's not enough for one side to back down. Both sides most do that. So if the Israelis hadn't killed the Hamas leader right after the Palestinian bomb, but let The Palestinian arrest those responsible for the attack and then have them deported to Israel, there wouldn't be as many retaliation bombing that now once more will come from the Palestinians. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Ok, I can see what you are suggesting. But note..the Israelies retaliated against Hamas.....Hamas and other militant groups are targeting innocent civilians...see the difference? I don't think I ever said that "ALL" Palistinians were guilty of anything. I do know however that if the "Innocent" palistinians got up off their butts and stopped the radical nut jobs that are living amongst them...then things would be a lot more peaceful inthe region.

As for European views on things Israeli and jewish...ummm Historicly Europe has not been a very friendly place for Jews. It wasn't just Hitler who hated jews. There has been persecution at various times all over Europe the Catholic church was pretty hard on them during the Inquisition years...and many of the European governments have at times been rather unfriendly to the money lenders amongst them. The USA is slightly more pro-Jewish than current day Europe I guess.... Im not jewish, I have only a few Jewish friends. All I know is what I learn when researching history. I think I side with the Jews and Israel partly because they are the underdog.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I have to agree with Donuts, point there...not always slaves...persecuted and some times hated yes.

Due in part to their financial accumen historicly (a stereotype that has roots in reality)
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
We seem to differ in that I take intentions into account and you apparently do not. Two or Three or a few people accidentally caught in cross fire are a different story from Dozens purposely targetd because they are defenseless.
</font>

"Always been slaves" - don't think so! Been persecuted - yep! </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, point taken, maybe i should have said they have always been stepped upon, humiliated, and treated like dirt. Better now ? :D