Do Israelis Even Want To Win?????

[jillian]

One small detail was left out of the talk about Israel ceding their land to the Palestinians. My best recollection is that they did not do this "ceding" voluntarily. They were pressured into it by their "friends" who thought that giving Israel's land to the Palestinians would keep the peace in that area. Such simpletons!

Actually, not quite accurate. If you're talking about the negotiations, well, the Palestinians never signed on to the accords, so no land was ceded based on "pressure".

Israel had to make a decision... they could cut loose the Palestinians by dumping them and their areas, or stop being a democracy... because the Palestinian birth rates were outpacing the Israeli's to such a degree that they'd have destroyed the Jewish State anyway.

Like I said, I think they're pretty pragmatic.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Actually, not quite accurate. If you're talking about the negotiations, well, the Palestinians never signed on to the accords, so no land was ceded based on "pressure".

The Palestinians never signed on to the accords??? That's news to me. Go back and review what transpired during the 1990's in regard to Israel and the PLO and then tell me that the Palestinians never signed on to any "peace accords." I'm assuming you're thinking about that one time when Arafat refused to sign the document giving him the "moon". There were many more "peace accords" they did sign wherein they were given authority over Israel's lands if they would just be good little Arabs and behave themselves.

 

[jillian]

The Palestinians never signed on to the accords??? That's news to me. Go back and review what transpired during the 1990's in regard to Israel and the PLO and then tell me that the Palestinians never signed on to any "peace accords." I'm assuming you're thinking about that one time when Arafat refused to sign the document giving him the "moon". There were many more "peace accords" they did sign wherein they were given authority over Israel's lands if they would just be good little Arabs and behave themselves.

I was referring to the last that Arafat was asked to sign...which would have finalized a two-state solution (or at least moved the parties close to one). Arafat refused to sign saying he would be "drinking tea with Rabin" if he did.

Of course, that little fact didn't keep him from taking a fortune in financial incentives given for his presence at the peace table...but there ya go.

What do you think Israel should do? I've heard vague assertions that they should elect people who will fight. But what does that entail? Does it mean they flatten the entire middle east? (not quite realistic or desireable). Does it mean they engage in targeted strikes? (they're already doing a pretty good job at that).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Does it mean they flatten the entire middle east? (not quite realistic or desireable)..

That sounds good. WHat do you do with people who are committed to doing that exact thing to you?

 

[jillian]

That sounds good. WHat do you do with people who are committed to doing that exact thing to you?

So you think they should flatten the middle east? Interesting. I think you take steps to root them out and take responsive steps when they act -- same as the IDF and Mossad have been doing. I also think that the world has to refuse to deal with Hammas til they act like good girls and boys and disavow terrorism now that they have to act like grown-ups and actually lead.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

... til they act like good girls and boys and disavow terrorism now that they have to act like grown-ups and actually lead.

Jihad is a core part of their religion, they will die before they act like "good little boys and girls." They have a death wish. Who are we to deny them that?

 

[jillian]

Jihad is a core part of their religion, they will die before they act like "good little boys and girls." They have a death wish. Who are we to deny them that?

Because "they" don't have a death wish...though many do. Others simply support the ones who blow themselves up. Neither situation is acceptable, obviously and Israel has appropriately dealt with situations as they come up.

If you're looking for the Armageddon, then your suggested response might be appropriate. But if you want Israel to remain a viable democratic state, regardless of what the Palestinians choose to do, then a measured response is more appropriate, IMO.

BTW, before one takes the position that Israel should just flatten it's arab neighbors, the geography/ethnic make up of the area should probably be considered. Israel is a teeny little piece of land surrounded by people hostile to its interests. It isn't about to take on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Lebannon, Egypt, etc., which it would have to do in your scenario. It could not afford to do tha militariliy, pragmatically, economically or politically.

So while there might be a sense of satisfaction in blowing up the terrorists and their supporters, from a realistic pov, not quite the way to go and it's, perhaps, a much easier position to take when not living there or being at risk from that type of action.

 

[Annie]

Because "they" don't have a death wish...though many do. Others simply support the ones who blow themselves up. Neither situation is acceptable, obviously and Israel has appropriately dealt with situations as they come up.

If you're looking for the Armageddon, then your suggested response might be appropriate. But if you want Israel to remain a viable democratic state, regardless of what the Palestinians choose to do, then a measured response is more appropriate, IMO.

BTW, before one takes the position that Israel should just flatten it's arab neighbors, the geography/ethnic make up of the area should probably be considered. Israel is a teeny little piece of land surrounded by people hostile to its interests. It isn't about to take on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Lebannon, Egypt, etc., which it would have to do in your scenario. It could not afford to do tha militariliy, pragmatically, economically or politically.

So while there might be a sense of satisfaction in blowing up the terrorists and their supporters, from a realistic pov, not quite the way to go and it's, perhaps, a much easier position to take when not living there or being at risk from that type of action.

Hamas has made it very clear that they will not accept a two state solution or accept the right of Israel to survive.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Because "they" don't have a death wish...though many do. Others simply support the ones who blow themselves up. Neither situation is acceptable, obviously and Israel has appropriately dealt with situations as they come up.

If you're looking for the Armageddon, then your suggested response might be appropriate. But if you want Israel to remain a viable democratic state, regardless of what the Palestinians choose to do, then a measured response is more appropriate, IMO.

BTW, before one takes the position that Israel should just flatten it's arab neighbors, the geography/ethnic make up of the area should probably be considered. Israel is a teeny little piece of land surrounded by people hostile to its interests. It isn't about to take on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Lebannon, Egypt, etc., which it would have to do in your scenario. It could not afford to do tha militariliy, pragmatically, economically or politically.

So while there might be a sense of satisfaction in blowing up the terrorists and their supporters, from a realistic pov, not quite the way to go and it's, perhaps, a much easier position to take when not living there or being at risk from that type of action.

They could afford to. We could help. These people are committed to dominating the west or die trying. They don't want to get along. Do you listen to the news? DO you think they're kidding about spreading Islam across the globe? Maybe if they think they WILL get flattened, the so called moderates will rise up. Islam must reform itself, we cannot do it for them.

 

[jillian]

They could afford to. We could help. These people are committed to dominating the west or die trying. They don't want to get along. Do you listen to the news? DO you think they're kidding about spreading Islam across the globe? Maybe if they think they WILL get flattened, the so called moderates will rise up. Islam must reform itself, we cannot do it for them.

We are operating at absurd deficit levels ourselves right now and have already spread our miliary so thin that our troops are getting stop-lossed rather than being allowed to end their service as agreed. We don't have the resources to operate with respect to every nation in the mid-east. Nor do I think we should.

I also don't see "terrorism" as a military issue. It is an "intelligence" issue. Cells need to be rooted out and individual operations shut down. This is the manner in which Israel has found it most feasible to conduct its anti terrorist activity and I figure they've had far more experience with that than we have.

Before focusing our resources on the middle east, we need to shore up our own internal security: our ports, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, ports, water and food sources need to be protected. Dividing money equally among all the states instead of focusing it on the most likely potential targets also doesn't seem the wisest of courses to take. (though that said, I think Afghanistan was a necessary target -- we just stopped too soon).

If we had fought a war against facism instead of a war against Germany, we'd still be fighting WWII.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We are operating at absurd deficit levels ourselves right now and have already spread our miliary so thin that our troops are getting stop-lossed rather than being allowed to end their service as agreed. We don't have the resources to operate with respect to every nation in the mid-east. Nor do I think we should.

WHich as a good argument for just flattening the place with munitions.

I also don't see "terrorism" as a military issue. It is an "intelligence" issue. Cells need to be rooted out and individual operations shut down. This is the manner in which Israel has found it most feasible to conduct its anti terrorist activity and I figure they've had far more experience with that than we have.

Military and intelligence have always gone hand in hand. Stopping people with bombs is at least partially military related, therefore needs an at least partial military solution.

Before focusing our resources on the middle east, we need to shore up our own internal security: our ports, nuclear facilities, chemical plants, ports, water and food sources need to be protected. Dividing money equally among all the states instead of focusing it on the most likely potential targets also doesn't seem the wisest of courses to take. (though that said, I think Afghanistan was a necessary target -- we just stopped too soon).

If we had fought a war against facism instead of a war against Germany, we'd still be fighting WWII.

I believe we should keep the terrorists focues over there instead of here. We should beef up some local security though.

 

[jillian]

WHich as a good argument for just flattening the place with munitions.

Military and intelligence have always gone hand in hand. Stopping people with bombs is at least partially military related, therefore needs an at least partial military solution.


I believe we should keep the terrorists focues over there instead of here. We should beef up some local security though.

Seems a bit of a needlessly overzealous response. We're not just talking bad folk out there... innocents, women, kids, too. Perhaps a better way to address the problem is to put pressure on "friends" like the Saudis to shut down the Madrassas and do something about the disparity between rich and poor in those countrys, along with addressing the 30% unemployment level. People who are well-fed, educated and employed don't generally blow themselves up.

Terrorism isn't a military issue, IMO. And I don't believe we've done anything to keep it over "there" instead of "here". London had bombings since we've been in Iraq and you have absolutely no way of knowing what is being planned from inside the U.S. Plus, I'd remind you that there were about 7 years between the first and second WTC attacks....so there ya go. Calm before the storm.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Seems a bit of a needlessly overzealous response. We're not just talking bad folk out there... innocents, women, kids, too. Perhaps a better way to address the problem is to put pressure on "friends" like the Saudis to shut down the Madrassas and do something about the disparity between rich and poor in those countrys, along with addressing the 30% unemployment level. People who are well-fed, educated and employed don't generally blow themselves up.

Terrorism isn't a military issue, IMO. And I don't believe we've done anything to keep it over "there" instead of "here". London had bombings since we've been in Iraq and you have absolutely no way of knowing what is being planned from inside the U.S. Plus, I'd remind you that there were about 7 years between the first and second WTC attacks....so there ya go. Calm before the storm.

Totalitarianism is part and parcel of the vicious muslim culture. This repression retards economic development.

Terrorism IS a military issue. It takes a psychotic break from reality to see it otherwise.

OUr invasion of Iraq keeps terrorism focused over there.

You're so very wrong on every point.

 

[jillian]

Totalitarianism is part and parcel of the vicious muslim culture. This repression retards economic development.

There have been many "vicious" cultures in history. Historically, whenever there have been tyrannical regimes, at some point in the growing pain process there has been violence. Again, this doesn't preclude the type of remedial actions I discussed. Perhaps a little pressure on the Saudis to control their own loonies and shut down the madrassas and share some of the oil wealth?

Terrorism IS a military issue. It takes a psychotic break from reality to see it otherwise.

You are certainly free to disagree with me. But I can assure you have have taken no breaks from reality psychotic or otherwise. Moreover, some people who have had far more experience with terrorists than we have agree with me, such as the Jaffe Center in Israel, which relied upon findings like this one:

Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was

strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not

just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite

clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/693

OUr invasion of Iraq keeps terrorism focused over there.

I've already pointed out that is an incorrect basic premise, hence places like England and Spain being targeted since the commencement of the Iraq action.

You're so very wrong on every point.

Again, you're certainly free to disagree with me. But if either of us thought the other was correct, we wouldn't believe what we do, but would instead adopt the other's pov. Obviously not likely on either account.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There have been many "vicious" cultures in history. Historically, whenever there have been tyrannical regimes, at some point in the growing pain process there has been violence.

The violence in the mideast is not growing pains. It's muslim culture. Check history.

Again, this doesn't preclude the type of remedial actions I discussed. Perhaps a little pressure on the Saudis to control their own loonies and shut down the madrassas and share some of the oil wealth?

"Pinky swear?"

You are certainly free to disagree with me. But I can assure you have have taken no breaks from reality psychotic or otherwise. Moreover, some people who have had far more experience with terrorists than we have agree with me, such as the Jaffe Center in Israel, which relied upon findings like this one:

Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was

strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not

just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite

clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/693



I've already pointed out that is an incorrect basic premise, hence places like England and Spain being targeted since the commencement of the Iraq action.



Again, you're certainly free to disagree with me. But if either of us thought the other was correct, we wouldn't believe what we do, but would instead adopt the other's pov. Obviously not likely on either account.

So you think our occupation of Iraq is not taking any terrorists focus off of attacks against the U.S. here at home? That's simply absurd. Good day to you.

 

[Nuc]

So you think our occupation of Iraq is not taking any terrorists focus off of attacks against the U.S. here at home? That's simply absurd. Good day to you.

As a sort of military shell game, maybe. But it's simultaneously galvanising support for terrorism and breeding new terrorist recruits.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As a sort of military shell game, maybe. But it's simultaneously galvanising support for terrorism and breeding new terrorist recruits.

They will have support for new recruits as long as the entire world is not subjugated to islam. We have to start somewhere. I say kick the hive.

 

[jillian]

The violence in the mideast is not growing pains. It's muslim culture. Check history.

If that were the case, all muslims would be blowing themselves up. I think it's fundamentalists using people's unhappiness, ignorance and poverty to pursue a political agenda. And the way to address issues like that, aside from targeted, speedy and effective strikes against the perpetrators is to attack the ignorance and poverty at its root, notwithstanding the hate and garbage spewed by the Imams at the madrassas. (And I'd point out that the madrassas wouldn't exist if governments like the Saudis actually educated their kids instead of leaving it up to the loonies to do it for them.

"Pinky swear?"

Heh!

So you think our occupation of Iraq is not taking any terrorists focus off of attacks against the U.S. here at home?

Yes, I do and the fallacy in that way of thinking is proven by the fact that western peoples are still at risk and have been attacked since our entry into Iraq. And again, the Jaffe Center, which has people far more experienced than any of us are from the safe vantage point of a computer terminal, also thinks we've stirred the hornets nest and given the loonies a training ground and gathering point.

That's simply absurd.

Um....no. Arguments exist on both sides of the equation. Invalidating the positions of people who disagree is kind of a narrow pov. Besides, how can you read and assess things like the Jaffe Center position without giving it the slightest consideration? One is, obviously, free to disregard their positions in favor of those adopted by others, but to say that the positions are per se unreasonable shuts off the flow of too much good information, IMO.

Good day to you.

Thank you....and to you, as well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If that were the case, all muslims would be blowing themselves up. I think it's fundamentalists using people's unhappiness, ignorance and poverty to pursue a political agenda. And the way to address issues like that, aside from targeted, speedy and effective strikes against the perpetrators is to attack the ignorance and poverty at its root, notwithstanding the hate and garbage spewed by the Imams at the madrassas. (And I'd point out that the madrassas wouldn't exist if governments like the Saudis actually educated their kids instead of leaving it up to the loonies to do it for them.

But that "hate and garbage" being spewed IS islam.

Heh!



Yes, I do and the fallacy in that way of thinking is proven by the fact that western peoples are still at risk and have been attacked since our entry into Iraq. And again, the Jaffe Center, which has people far more experienced than any of us are from the safe vantage point of a computer terminal, also thinks we've stirred the hornets nest and given the loonies a training ground and gathering point.



Um....no. Arguments exist on both sides of the equation. Invalidating the positions of people who disagree is kind of a narrow pov. Besides, how can you read and assess things like the Jaffe Center position without giving it the slightest consideration? One is, obviously, free to disregard their positions in favor of those adopted by others, but to say that the positions are per se unreasonable shuts off the flow of too much good information, IMO.

Some positions are unreasonable and should be discounted. Credentialed idiocy is still idiocy.

 

[jillian]

But that "hate and garbage" being spewed IS islam.

Not really. Not a belief-system that would appeal to me, but there is absolutely nothing in the Koran that supports the concept of suicide bombers. And, in fact, suicide is considered an affront to Islam. It's the men who preach fundamentalist, hate-filled concepts who distort religion.

Some positions are unreasonable and should be discounted. Credentialed idiocy is still idiocy.

Based upon your opinion of what constitutes reasonable.....

Well, at least you give opposing views serious consideration.