Page 24 of 47 FirstFirst ... 14192021222324252627282934 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 923
  1. #461  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Interesting editorial:

    Hunker Down With History

    By Richard Cohen
    Tuesday, July 18, 2006; A19...
    Interesting article. Let's make the presumptuous argument that Israel was a “mistake,” and read the last paragraph in this article:
    “Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down.”
    My question to you and the author: once you accept the “mistake” identity of Israel wouldn’t it be easy to conclude “crime” soon afterward?
  2. #462  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Then how civilian deaths in Lebanon are too many?
    Yes, too many!

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I have been trying to give my solutions to minimize civilian casualities, not shelter hezbollah. I have the feeling some you do not understand terrorisms roots, in otherwords it's reason for being, without that understanding you won't defeat it. Put, simply, you can not beat terrorism using a military approach, all that does is make more little terrorists.
    I am not a military expert to neither confirm nor deny your statement. I do, however, think that the longest Israel was to wait in dealing with Hezbollah the worst it would have gotten. Civilians die in war and it is a terrible thing indeed, but there is such thing as a justified war (WWII perhaps?), a war that prevents future consequences far greater than the current ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I was under the understanding that this war was about captured/kipnapped soldiers, or at least that is what Israel would lead us to believe.
    It's about Iran and Syria ("The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability--which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year--an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely." Link: Click Here ).
  3. #463  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    My question to you and the author: once you accept the “mistake” identity of Israel wouldn’t it be easy to conclude “crime” soon afterward?
    I believe the UN has already addressed that.
  4. #464  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I believe the UN has already addressed that.
    Perhaps so, but we both know that the UN represents noise over substance a bit too often.
    (Actually, I was wondering what you think.)
  5. #465  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    Perhaps so, but we both know that the UN represents noise over substance a bit too often.
    (Actually, I was wondering what you think.)
    I agree with "mistake" and would like for Israel to follow the UN resolution 194.

    It would seem that the UN was more than "noise" when it made the "mistake".
  6. #466  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I agree with "mistake" and would like for Israel to follow the UN resolution 194.

    It would seem that the UN was more than "noise" when it made the "mistake".
    What about UN Security Council Resolution 1559?

    Out of curiosity: Is the US a mistake? After-all, White Europeans took the land from its Native Americans and, as in the article you have posted (the "idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims..." was a mistake), the idea of creating a nation of white Europeans in an area of Native Americans.... Well, you know...
  7. #467  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    What about UN Security Council Resolution 1559?
    If I may, this editorial says it so much better than I can.



    Netanyahu's Latest Hypocrisy
    Israel and the Irony of UN Resolutions


    By ROBERT BRYCE

    Quick. Someone call the irony police.

    The Israelis are demanding that Lebanon and every other player with a stake in the Middle East comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. That's the one that calls for the disarming of all militias in Lebanon, including, of course, Hezbollah.

    On July 22, former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, in which he cited U.N. 1559. The leader of the right-wing Likud party declared that Lebanon's failure to disarm Hezbollah was a "direct violation" of the U.N. resolution. And he added that Israel was only using a "fraction of its firepower and is in fact, acting with great care to minimize harm to civilians."

    Given Netanyahu's eagerness to cite U.N. resolutions, and given that the civilian death toll in Lebanon has passed 300 (many of the innocents are women and children) and given that the destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure is nearly complete, it's time to revisit the idea of U.N. resolutions. While doing so, let's look at Israel's compliance with those measures.

    Let's start with U.N. Resolution 242. Adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council on November 22, 1967, shortly after the end of the Six-Day War, the opening section of the resolution emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." But the critical part of the resolution says that a "just and lasting peace" can only be achieved through certain measures. The first item on that list: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflicts."

    Let's continue with U.N. Resolution 338, also passed unanimously. It was approved on October 22, 1973, in an effort to end the Yom Kippur War. Much shorter than 242, the newer resolution calls on the Israelis and their neighbors to immediately stop fighting, and "to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation" of Resolution 242.

    The world community is now approaching four decades since the passage of U.N. 242. And during those four decades, the Israelis have continued to obfuscate, evade, and even deny the plain wording of the resolution. During those four decades they have continued their military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. During those four decades, they have continued their occupation and outright theft of Palestinian land through the construction of dozens of settlements. Over the past couple of years, the Israelis have been building a wall that will, de facto, make permanent their taking of large swaths of Palestinian land. The wall subverts the clear intention of U.N. 242.

    It's particularly important to discuss U.N. 242 and 338 right now. Why? Well, on March 27, 2002, the Arab League, led by then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, adopted a peace plan that called for all of the Arab states to recognize Israel. Toward that end, the peace plan called for * what else? * the implementation of U.N. 242 and 338. That 2002 vote by the Arab League was held in Beirut * the ancient city that is now being reduced to a rubble-filled graveyard by the Israeli military.

    The Arab peace plan was extraordinary * particularly since it came from Saudi Arabia, which has never recognized Israel. The heart of Abdullah's plan has two elements: "full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights;" and "the acceptance of a sovereign independent Palestinian state." In exchange, the Arab countries agreed to establish normal relations with Israel and "consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended."

    That peace plan has foundered since 2002. The reasons for its failure are many. And if we want to play the blame game regarding the current situation in Lebanon, there's plenty to go around: the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, the Iranians' support for Hezbollah, the stridency of Hamas, the idiocy and corruption of the Syrian leadership, the weakness of the Lebanese government * can all be cited as causes of the current conflict.

    But the simple truth is that when it comes to complying with international norms of conduct * on issues like the torture of prisoners, on the detention of prisoners without charge, or destruction of civilian infrastructure like electric power plants -- Israel is a rogue. Eventually, all discussions about peace in the Middle East return to U.N. 242 and 338. And yet the only U.N. resolutions that Israel wants to abide by are the ones that favor its territorial expansion and unrestrained militarism.

    So please, Bibi, spare us your sermons on U.N. 1559.

  8. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #468  
    So please, Bibi, spare us your sermons on U.N. 1559.
    So only the Arab world can complain about resolutions but not Israel. Ofcourse I can also add that if resolution 1559 was enforced, this war would never have started.

    Its amazing to me that when its Israel at fault, the first thing thrown around is Israels failure to recognize UN resolutions. But, these same people start throwing this garbage around when it goes the other way. Just amazing.

    I also realize some people just hate Israel and their views will always be tainted....Thats fine, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I have no appreciation for any blanket generalization hate. But are we talking about Israelis or Jewish people?
    Last edited by TomUps; 07/25/2006 at 03:18 PM.
  9. #469  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If I may, this editorial says it so much better than I can.


    [FONT=Times New Roman]
    Netanyahu's Latest Hypocrisy
    Israel and the Irony of UN Resolutions


    By ROBERT BRYCE
    Today Mr. Netanyahu's party represents less than 19% of Israeli society: Gimme a break. And to quote Israel's most notoriously right-winger, at that!

    Yes, resolutions 242/338 (much debated in Off Topic in the past, according to a quick search) need to be respected (albeit with some reservations) by Israel. But you have countered my question with an article making fun of Israel requesting resolution 1559 be taken seriously. Instead, let's agree that 242/338/1559 be taken seriously by *all* parties involved.

    And you haven't answered this question (not a poison pill, may I add):

    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    Out of curiosity: Is the US a mistake? After-all, White Europeans took the land from its Native Americans and, as in the article you have posted (the "idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims..." was a mistake), the idea of creating a nation of white Europeans in an area of Native Americans.... Well, you know...
    Last edited by impish; 07/25/2006 at 03:33 PM.
  10. #470  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    And you haven't answered this question (not a poison pill, may I add):
    Is the U.S. a "mistake" as used in the op-ed piece? Obviously not. Manifest Destiny self deluded the early Americans into wiping out the indigenous people and claiming the entire continent. Much different than the method/plan referred to as a "mistake" in the oped piece.
  11. #471  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I also realize some people just hate Israel and their views will always be tainted....Thats fine, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

    I pointed out that op-ed piece because it coincides with my opinion of Israel which you're always hammering me to define. Now you have a definition so you can stop trying to hang that "hate" shingle on me eh?
  12. #472  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Is the U.S. a "mistake" as used in the op-ed piece? Obviously not. Manifest Destiny self deluded the early Americans into wiping out the indigenous people and claiming the entire continent. Much different than the method/plan referred to as a "mistake" in the oped piece.
    Interesting contrast. Israel was "created" by a UN vote, while early Americans (a.k.a. white Europeans) killed and took land from the indigenous people, yet deserving the "Manifest Destiny" status... I agree with you all heartedly that the op-ed article gives Israel much more credence than you have given to the US.
  13. #473  
    Per post #469
    (I suppose there's a need for verifications to why I stated that Israel should accept UNR 242/338 with reservations. Remember that 242 also calls for recognizing Israel's right to exist. Today's Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, despite attempts by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to change its mind. Taking out of the equation Israel's right to exist makes the resolution more like a revolution).
  14. #474  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    Interesting contrast. Israel was "created" by a UN vote, while early Americans (a.k.a. white Europeans) killed and took land from the indigenous people, yet deserving the "Manifest Destiny" status... I agree with you all heartedly that the op-ed article gives Israel much more credence than you have given to the US.
    I simply pointed out the reason the op-ed piece used the term "mistake". I don't see how it applies to validity.
  15. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #475  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I pointed out that op-ed piece because it coincides with my opinion of Israel which you're always hammering me to define. Now you have a definition so you can stop trying to hang that "hate" shingle on me eh?
    Im not trying to hang anything on you....I just posted what you said in your own words. Your own words that have already defined what your opinion of Israel is. I also said your entitled to your own opinion.
  16. #476  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    Per post #469
    (I suppose there's a need for verifications to why I stated that Israel should accept UNR 242/338 with reservations. Remember that 242 also calls for recognizing Israel's right to exist. Today's Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, despite attempts by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to change its mind. Taking out of the equation Israel's right to exist makes the resolution more like a revolution).
    Pressure Saudi Arabia to take up the Arab Peace Plan again. It's not like our prez and his pops don't hang out with the leaders.
  17. #477  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Im not trying to hang anything on you....I just posted what you said in your own words. Your own words that have already defined what your opinion of Israel is. I also said your entitled to your own opinion.
    No, you've been trying very hard to do so. As evidenced by your obscure out of context quotes you keep trying to find.
  18. #478  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I simply pointed out the reason the op-ed piece used the term "mistake". I don't see how it applies to validity.
    I purposely asked for validity since I see similarities between the "creation" of the US ("foreigners" creating a land among strangers), and the creation of Israel.
    Is it suffice to say that Israel was a mistake and the US isn't? If we truly go back in time we might find that many "modern" countries were created either by force or by proxy (= mistake). Jordan, for example, was "created" by Britain for political reasons. Depends on your opinion, it could be viewed as a mistake.
    For my personal verifications I wanted to know your opinions so thanks for sharing.

    BTW, I hear that the fat lady is preparing to sing for this thread...
  19. #479  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Pressure Saudi Arabia to take up the Arab Peace Plan again. It's not like our prez and his pops don't hang out with the leaders.
    LOL
  20. #480  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish
    I purposely asked for validity since I see similarities between the "creation" of the US ("foreigners" creating a land among strangers), and the creation of Israel.
    Is it suffice to say that Israel was a mistake and the US isn't? If we truly go back in time we might find that many "modern" countries were created either by force or by proxy (= mistake). Jordan, for example, was "created" by Britain for political reasons. Depends on your opinion, it could be viewed as a mistake.
    For my personal verifications I wanted to know your opinions so thanks for sharing.

    BTW, I hear that the fat lady is preparing to sing for this thread...
    That's not what the op/ed author is referring to as part of the mistake.

Posting Permissions