Forums | MacLife

robco wrote:

Probably because with Iran, it's a largely empty threat.  With Israel, not so much.

Would it be different if they had a nuclear warhead?

So it would be in the best interest for peace if they didn't reach such technology then.

[Tycho?] wrote:

resedit wrote:

Interesting how Israel talking about bombing Iran, a country that says it wants to wipe them out, gets a rather strong reaction here.

When Iran however talks about wiping Israel, it isn't suppose to be taken at face value.

Truly fascinating.

See, one of these nations has a modern airforce and nuclear weapons. Another does not. Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel ever since the revolution. Its pretty obvious they aren't going to actually do anything about it, they would have already. Israel however has carried out its threats numerous times.

First of all - Iran has done something about it. They continue to fund terrorists who do strike at Israel, and they most certainly were behing the recent Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and shelling of Israel.

Second of all - Israel has never struck Iran. Israel has fought in defense of their nation - both when invaded by their neighbors, and when their neighbors have massed troops on their borders.

The Golan Heights - Syria used it to shell Israel from its inception until Israel finally had enough and took it in the '67 war. The west bank - Several arab nations were massing troops in them prior to the 67 war.

Israel also took out Saddams nuclear program, clearly a military target - unlike the civilian targets used by the terrorist organizations that both Iraq and Iran and Syria have continued to fund and train and supply.

And the estimated 400,000 Palestinians who were driven from Israel in 1948, at the threat of violence and death ?  Was Israel just defending its nation ?

Moral Clarity!

bratboy wrote:

Does the concept of a 'proportional response' mean anything to you?  I'm serious.  Is it your belief that, once provoked, a military power has 'the right' to bring any amount of destruction they deem necessary to an attacking country, or to a country that has some element attacking from it?

I have a bit of trouble with the concept I will freely admit.

oatmeal wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Is a shell-less turtle homeless or just naked?

Dead.  That's part of its skeleton.  Take away the shell, you've taken away its spine.

Ah, excellent, maybe you can help me with another question:  where does the white go when snow melts ??

bratboy wrote:

Does the concept of a 'proportional response' mean anything to you?  I'm serious.  Is it your belief that, once provoked, a military power has 'the right' to bring any amount of destruction they deem necessary to an attacking country, or to a country that has some element attacking from it?

Israel brought about response to take out rocket sites and disrupt the supply of rockets.
No, it wasn't proportional. If it had been proportional, it would have been less effective than it was.
Israel's initial objective was to get their soldiers returned. Once the rockets started, their objective was to stop the rockets from being fired into Israel.

A military does not sit down and say "They fired 17 rockets today, so lets keep it under 20 ourselves".
They have an objective and they look for a way to meet that objective, hopefully with as few civilian casualties as possible.

btw - it doesn't matter what side you are on, the actions of the enemy are going to look far worse and less justified than your own. This makes a "proportional response" kind of difficult, even if it is your objective. It is however a nice buzz word.

Of course Hezbollah was wrong to attack civilian areas.  That doesn't mean that disproportionately laying waste to civilian areas within Lebanon was appropriate, either.  They kidnapped a few Israeli soldiers?  Do you know how many people Israel has "kidnapped" (read: captured and imprisoned without trial)?

It would be nice if there was a way to take out the Hezbollah positions without incurring damage on civilian areas. Colf fusion would also be nice, and good tasting juicy hamburgers that don't ever squirt stuff out onto your shirt would be nice.

Hezbollah hid amongst civilians. Israel had to target those areas because that is where hezbollah was operating from, in violation of the Geneva convention - if I'm not mistaken. Of course, I don't think they are a party to the Geneva convention, but I think you get the point. Civilian areas suffered as much as they did because Hezbollah broke established rules of engangement, because Hezbollah massed arms against a peace treaty that resulted in an Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah did these things because Iran is holding their purse strings.

Thus, getting back on point, when claims are made that Irans statements can just be blown off because they have never acted on them - the brutal fact is that they HAVE acted on them, in a very sinister way.

They are strategically advantageous pieces of land for attacking Israel.
I'm sure you will deny this - but Israel actually took a hell of a lot more land in those wars than they kept. They returned the land that was not really of military strategic benefit to their enemies. They were within 20 miles of Damascus at one point! They gave that land back. But you go ahead and hide your head in the sand.

...and have their actions comported with international law as it relates to occupied territories?  Have their actions been ethical?

Not all of Israels actions have been ethical. However, let's take a look at the last two occupied territories they withdrew from - Lebanon and the Gaza strip. What was the result? Oh my! It was warfare against Israel!

Do you understand why they are hesitant to withdraw from the occupied territories?
Their enemy doesn't want that land back, they want Israel gone. Giving the land back will not calm things down, it will make things worse.

And for the record - the countries the land was taken from, they don't give a smurf about the palestinians. They see the palestinians as dirt, refuse, less than Arab. Really. They use the palestinians as proxy fodder in their war with Israel.

I never said Israel never killed a civilian. Civilians always die in any armed conflict.
Don't try to put words into my mouth that I did not say.

Your comments suggests that you were attempting to draw a distinction in behavior:

There is a distinction in behaviour.
Do you deny that?

resedit wrote:

Israel also took out Saddams nuclear program, clearly a military target - unlike the civilian targets used by the terrorist organizations that both Iraq and Iran and Syria have continued to fund and train and supply.

Israel has undertaken actions so reckless in relation to civilians that attempting to distinguish those actions from blatant "targeting" is meaningless.

No - it's not meaningless.
There was however quite a bit of propoganda coming out of Lebanon during that action that made things seem a lot more sinister than they were. They have documented this - seems the same people were in an awful lot of photographs - not to mention the clearly doctored photographs.

robco wrote:

The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers who were within the internationally recognized border with Israel was an act of war by Hamas and Hezbollah.  You don't commit acts of war unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences.  No other nation would tolerate such acts, Israel should be no different.  If they had apprehended undercover Moussad agents who were operating in Lebanon or Gaza or the West Bank, then that would be different.  But these were uniformed soldiers in their own country.

Israel routinely extrajudicially kills or imprisons suspects without trial.   

The rocket attacks by Hamas are also unjustified - now why should Israel give over the West Bank to the Palestinians?  Why shouldn't they re-occupy Gaza - or even southern Lebanon?  Should a country that takes territory in war be forced to give it back?  If that's the case, say goodbye to much of the US.

This concerns events that are relatively recent, and occurred after the creation of applicable international law.  Israel didn't simply hold these regions as military strategy...they snatched up resources and imported their own people to live there.

Israel could have caused much more destruction than they did.  With Hezbollah hiding weapons in civilian areas, what should Israel have done?  If you were the Israeli Defense Minister, what would you have done to stop the rocket attacks?

Was anything accomplished?  Hezbollah has been emboldened, the 'hearts and minds' of many Lebanese have been turned against Israel.  It was if nothing else a strategic blunder.   

I agree that Israel needs to charge and try their prisoners (but the US doesn't have much moral authority in this regard due to Gitmo).  But it's pretty apparent that the only thing that's understood is violence and unfortunately, there's too many people who are too willing to die in a vain effort to destroy Israel.  Hamas absolutely refuses to recognize Israel and it's impossible to negotiate with someone that won't even recognize your right to exist.  Perhaps we need to set up a judicial process to resolve the issue of prisoners for both sides.

A nice clean diplomatic solution would be ideal, but that doesn't seem terribly likely anytime soon.  I think we're in halftime and we'll see another armed conflict very soon.

If the situation in the occupied territories were improved, that would be a huge step.  Cutting off support and funding isn't the answer.

resedit wrote:

Israel brought about response to take out rocket sites and disrupt the supply of rockets.
No, it wasn't proportional. If it had been proportional, it would have been less effective than it was.
Israel's initial objective was to get their soldiers returned. Once the rockets started, their objective was to stop the rockets from being fired into Israel.

...and the massive shelling of Lebanon:  Did it accomplish those tasks?

A military does not sit down and say "They fired 17 rockets today, so lets keep it under 20 ourselves".
They have an objective and they look for a way to meet that objective, hopefully with as few civilian casualties as possible.

Then there's the "objective" of destroying infrastructure in retaliation against the civilian population.  I find it impossible to consider the totality of Israel's past actions in the occupied territories and in Lebanon and reach the conclusion that there wasn't a punitive aspect to some of their behavior.

It would be nice if there was a way to take out the Hezbollah positions without incurring damage on civilian areas. Colf fusion would also be nice, and good tasting juicy hamburgers that don't ever squirt stuff out onto your shirt would be nice.

Hezbollah hid amongst civilians. Israel had to target those areas because that is where hezbollah was operating from, in violation of the Geneva convention - if I'm not mistaken. Of course, I don't think they are a party to the Geneva convention, but I think you get the point. Civilian areas suffered as much as they did because Hezbollah broke established rules of engangement, because Hezbollah massed arms against a peace treaty that resulted in an Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah did these things because Iran is holding their purse strings.

...and I recall numerous accounts from aide organizations documenting blatantly unlawful actions from both sides. 

Not all of Israels actions have been ethical. However, let's take a look at the last two occupied territories they withdrew from - Lebanon and the Gaza strip. What was the result? Oh my! It was warfare against Israel!

Do you understand why they are hesitant to withdraw from the occupied territories?
Their enemy doesn't want that land back, they want Israel gone. Giving the land back will not calm things down, it will make things worse.

Israel never should have used the territories in the ways that the did.  The more hopeless the situation in the territories, the more Israel treats civilians as military occupiers, the more that militants can draw Israel into tit-for-tat attacks that end up killing even more civilians and destroying the little infrastructure they have (often bearing little or no relation to the act supposedly being 'retaliated' against)...the situation will never improve.

And for the record - the countries the land was taken from, they don't give a smurf about the palestinians. They see the palestinians as dirt, refuse, less than Arab. Really. They use the palestinians as proxy fodder in their war with Israel.

I'm not suggesting (nor does anyone AFAIK) that the land be given back to such countries.

There is a distinction in behaviour.
Do you deny that?

There are plenty of examples of abhorrent behavior by both sides.

No - it's not meaningless.
There was however quite a bit of propoganda coming out of Lebanon during that action that made things seem a lot more sinister than they were. They have documented this - seems the same people were in an awful lot of photographs - not to mention the clearly doctored photographs.

I'm talking about Israel's behavior overall, including in Gaza and the West Bank.

bratboy wrote:

Israel routinely extrajudicially kills or imprisons suspects without trial.

Some terrorists are too dangerous to try and apprehend.  How many suspected terrorists have been killed by NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This concerns events that are relatively recent, and occurred after the creation of applicable international law.  Israel didn't simply hold these regions as military strategy...they snatched up resources and imported their own people to live there.

Yes, there was a war, Israel took the land in the war and occupied it.  Kinda like the US did with much of the southwestern US.  Israel tried to give back the West Bank and Jordan didn't want it.  They gave back the Golan Heights and could have taken much more land in Egypt - but didn't.  Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and were preparing to do the same to the West Bank - with great internal difficulty.  And what did that get them?  Why would the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas make Israel want to pursue that course of action now?

Was anything accomplished?  Hezbollah has been emboldened, the 'hearts and minds' of many Lebanese have been turned against Israel.  It was if nothing else a strategic blunder.

No, Israel caved into international pressure.  The peacekeeping mission is a joke.  They'll have to go to war again, it's just a matter of time.  One of these days, they'll have it out again and once again Israel will have to repel another invasion at great cost to both sides.  But with countries like Iran getting nukes, the stakes will be much higher.

If the situation in the occupied territories were improved, that would be a huge step.  Cutting off support and funding isn't the answer.

Giving support to terrorists isn't the answer either.  Cutting off funding has led to the desire effect of Hamas compromising a little and that's a start.  The message must be that funding is absolutely conditional based on a government that will recognize Israel and rein in the militants - anything less is simply unacceptable.  If/when aid does resume, the PA needs to allow external oversight to ensure that every Euro is spent to build infrastructure and grow the economy in Gaza and the WB and not used for terrorism.  Backing down now would be a huge mistake.

Imagine the Minutemen down south started launching homemade rockets into Mexico, and/or started kidnapping Mexican citizens to hold hostage.  If the US government took no action to stop them, wouldn't the Mexican government be justified in taking action?

He blows up a car, you blow up a building.  He puts 10 Israeli civilians in the hospital, you put 20 Palestinian civilians in the morgue.  That's the Middle East way.