How far might the Israeli-Palestidiot thing actually go?

[RLLD 4,230]

Linky

 

I mean, if the Hamas monkeys are the defacto government for Palestine, then when is it an outright war? If the endgame is the return of the soldier, what happens if he gets offed? Does Israel then maul the morons indefinitely?

 

It seems as though nothing short of the destruction of Hamas will suffice at this time, but how can that be "legal" exactly, without Israel more or less declaring open war?

[GobbleDog 996]

I don't know about the legality of it, but everytime Palestinians blows up a bus or kidnaps someone, Isreal goes in with tanks, attack helicopters and troops and kicks the living the crap out of em.

 

You'd think Palestine would eventually realize they can't win. But yet they continue to pull stunts like this. To hell with them.

[VikesNation 0]

My guess is until one side wipes the other out.

[pingpong 0]

Tough call. The Palesinians have shown that while they claim they want independence, they are not happy with that. All of the negotiating in the world will not give them what they want. It has also been shown that relalitory warfare does not work. If Israel tries negotiating, the maggots keep attacking. If they wipe out anything to do with Hamas, they risk fighting the entire Arab world (who, by the way, hates the Palestianians also).

I have no idea what I would do if I called the shots for Israel.

[shovelheadt 71]

I don't know about the legality of it, but everytime Palestinians blows up a bus or kidnaps someone, Isreal goes in with tanks, attack helicopters and troops and kicks the living the crap out of em.

 

You'd think Palestine would eventually realize they can't win. But yet they continue to pull stunts like this. To hell with them.

 

If they were ever going to realize it, it would have happened back in 67 after it took Israel 6 days to stomp a puddle in the ass of 4 countries. Actually, 9 countries if you count the ones that sent help.

 

If they wipe out anything to do with Hamas, they risk fighting the entire Arab world

 

I'm betting they aren't scared by this prospect.

[torridjoe 48]

I don't know about the legality of it, but everytime Palestinians blows up a bus or kidnaps someone, Isreal goes in with tanks, attack helicopters and troops and kicks the living the crap out of em.

 

You'd think Palestine would eventually realize they can't win. But yet they continue to pull stunts like this. To hell with them.

 

I don't know about the legality of it, but everytime Israel invades territory they don't own, blows up some houses or buries people alive with a bulldozer, Palestinians reignite their intifada. You'd think Israel would eventually realize they can't win. But yet they continue to pull stunts like this.

[RLLD 4,230]

My guess is until one side wipes the other out.

 

While you re absolutely correct, isnt this the first time that Israel hzs directly gone after what it recognized as the government of Palestine?

 

By granting them self-rule, however limited, I am thinking this is an entirely new dynamic. They are in essence hitning that they will assasinate the heads of the Palestinian government.

[torridjoe 48]

While you re absolutely correct, isnt this the first time that Israel hzs directly gone after what it recognized as the government of Palestine?

 

What would you call laying seige to the PLO compound at Ramadi when Arafat was still alive?

[RLLD 4,230]

What would you call laying seige to the PLO compound at Ramadi when Arafat was still alive?

 

 

Same thing I guess..... I am not sure....

 

Isnt this instance a little different though? I get teh feeling that the final goal, almost a stated one, is to eliminate Hamas-the ruling entity. Was that goal intended on the Ramadi affair?

 

Arent they somewhat different? (I am trying to get my arms around this, as I think the eventuality is a regional conflict)

[Soonerman 0]

What would you call laying seige to the PLO compound at Ramadi when Arafat was still alive?

 

A good start?

[GobbleDog 996]

I don't know about the legality of it, but everytime Israel invades territory they don't own, blows up some houses or buries people alive with a bulldozer, Palestinians reignite their intifada. You'd think Israel would eventually realize they can't win. But yet they continue to pull stunts like this.

 

You're not seriously siding with Palestine kidnapping that soldier, are you?

 

Sounds like you're trying to say historically speaking, Palestine has a rightful claim to Isreal's land. Maybe that's true (although I'm sure it's a very cloudy issue), but they'll never get it back. Don't you think Palestine should just accept that at this point instead of continuing to terrorize Isreal? I do.

[Voltaire 5,316]

The ones itching for a fight on both sides are always looking for excuses to prod the other to attack. Every time there is a tenative truce, something bad happens to blow it all back up again.

 

Way I see it, you can either work a truce through negotation or one side wipes the other one out. The one will probably never happen, the other requires some truly inhumane acts.

 

Israel has had the ability to wipe out the Palestininas any time they wanted to for 60 years. But seeing as how Israel can be cowed from wiping out the Palestinians by international pressure but not vice versa, the only way this ever ends is that Israel somehow placates the Palestinians or the Palestinians wipe out Israel.

[heavy-set 39]

maybe if the jews left a half way decent tip

[paulinstl 296]

I predict the outcome of this current situation will lead to Israel getting vengence, the Palestines will demand their homeland back, the U.S. will back Israel diplomatically, the Arab world will back the Palestinians, trillions of dollars will be wasted trying to keep the oil flowing in a region that has been in-fighting since the very beginning.

 

In other words, Meet the new boss, same as the old Boss.

[RLLD 4,230]

Don't you think Palestine should just accept that at this point instead of continuing to terrorize Isreal? I do.

 

 

I think that is no more possible for the Palestidiots than it is for the Israeli's....

 

The ONLY solution is the absolute destruction of one of them.

[torridjoe 48]

You're not seriously siding with Palestine kidnapping that soldier, are you?

 

Sounds like you're trying to say historically speaking, Palestine has a rightful claim to Isreal's land. Maybe that's true (although I'm sure it's a very cloudy issue), but they'll never get it back. Don't you think Palestine should just accept that at this point instead of continuing to terrorize Isreal? I do.

 

I'm not siding with ANYONE. I'm pointing out that to blame one side for the ongoing trouble is pointless. Whatever the Palestinians do today is based in part on what the Israelis did yesterday, which is based in part on what the Palestinians did last week...etc., etc.

 

I'm saying they both believe they have rightful claims to the land, and they both do. And if they'd simply listen to the large majorities on both sides who want peaceful Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, they'd begin to work something out.

 

Same thing I guess..... I am not sure....

 

Isnt this instance a little different though? I get teh feeling that the final goal, almost a stated one, is to eliminate Hamas-the ruling entity. Was that goal intended on the Ramadi affair?

 

Arent they somewhat different? (I am trying to get my arms around this, as I think the eventuality is a regional conflict)

 

Yes, it's a little different. Arafat was considered to have ties to terror organizations; now the terror organization directly runs things. I see the distinction you're making; carry on.

[RLLD 4,230]

Yes, it's a little different. Arafat was considered to have ties to terror organizations; now the terror organization directly runs things. I see the distinction you're making; carry on.

 

Well, since this is the new dynamic can the age-old model of incursion really work? How can this possibly end without someone like Syria or Egypt stepping in and escalating this.

 

We know that Hamas will NEVER back down, we know that Israel will keep coming after them. Perhaps the US has to step in to stop a regional showdown at some point, pressure Israel to call it off?

[GobbleDog 996]

I'm saying they both believe they have rightful claims to the land, and they both do. And if they'd simply listen to the large majorities on both sides who want peaceful Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, they'd begin to work something out.

 

Which side do you honestly believe has made the most genuine effort for peace? Clearly you'd have to say Isreal, wouldn't you? I would.

 

They handed over the West Bank. They've made countless truce offers. I understand they even released a bunch of Palestinian prisoners. Nothing seems to help.

[torridjoe 48]

Perhaps the US has to step in to stop a regional showdown at some point, pressure Israel to call it off?

 

You're getting warmer. Until the US becomes a true broker for peace, instead of an Israel proxy, there's not going to be a lot of improvement.

[RLLD 4,230]

You're getting warmer. Until the US becomes a true broker for peace, instead of an Israel proxy, there's not going to be a lot of improvement.

 

 

That is the sense I get out of all this. It seems like all the players are waiting to see what the US does about it before they committ to anything. But, eventually the people in the region are going to get pretty antsy abotu Israel running crazy and seeking the total destruction of Hamas. So much so that the leaders of Egypt and Syria will see military intervention as a necessity.

 

My question is why we would let it go that far, I would like to see more involvement from our people in talking Israel down a bit, getting that rage under control now. What I dont want to see is an open conflict in the region, I think that turns pretty ugly really quick.

[torridjoe 48]

Which side do you honestly believe has made the most genuine effort for peace? Clearly you'd have to say Isreal, wouldn't you? I would.

 

They handed over the West Bank. They've made countless truce offers. I understand they even released a bunch of Palestinian prisoners. Nothing seems to help.

 

How can you make a serious effort for peace, while you occupy someone else's territory against their will?

 

If Israel "handed over" the West Bank, I missed it.

[davebg 0]

Yes, it's a little different. Arafat was considered to have ties to terror organizations; now the terror organization directly runs things. I see the distinction you're making; carry on.

It's also a little different in that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people.

 

At the time, everyone was like...YAY!...We now know what democracy is.

 

They put Hamas in power...knowing full-well what they stood for (ie. the destruction of Israel)...now they have to bear the consequences of doing so.

 

Back when Hamas wasn't the elected government, there was at least the faintest whiff of plausible deniability...on the part of the government and the people. Hamas et al would attack and everyone could blame it on the "rogue militants." Now Hamas IS the government and nobody w/a functioning brain cell is buying that crap about the political and the military wings being totally separate.

 

I guess it's time for the Palestinian people to get learned in the more advanced areas of democracy.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Look, this is all about some god-forsaken POS land that none of us would ever want to camp on for a weekend - much less die for. The solution? We give the Palestinians New Mexico. - With a few exceptions, it's mostly a poophole state. The Pals get their godforsaken space, the Israelis get theirs - everybody's happy.

[Jeff Garcia 8]

A good start?

Actually, flattening the thing would have been a good start.

[Strike 5,553]

You're getting warmer. Until the US becomes a true broker for peace, instead of an Israel proxy, there's not going to be a lot of improvement.

 

WTF are you talking about? Every time the US gets involved we get in trouble. I thought this was what the UN was for? Or are you admitting that the UN is worthless?

[torridjoe 48]

It's also a little different in that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people.

 

At the time, everyone was like...YAY!...We now know what democracy is.

 

They put Hamas in power...knowing full-well what they stood for (ie. the destruction of Israel)...now they have to bear the consequences of doing so.

 

Back when Hamas wasn't the elected government, there was at least the faintest whiff of plausible deniability...on the part of the government and the people. Hamas et al would attack and everyone could blame it on the "rogue militants." Now Hamas IS the government and nobody w/a functioning brain cell is buying that crap about the political and the military wings being totally separate.

 

I guess it's time for the Palestinian people to get learned in the more advanced areas of democracy.

 

The British were successfully able to deal with Sinn Fein, knowing that they ostensibly represented the violent IRA insurgency--because in a practical sense they WERE separate.

 

WTF are you talking about? Every time the US gets involved we get in trouble. I thought this was what the UN was for? Or are you admitting that the UN is worthless?

 

That's because everyone knows that the US is on Israel's side.

 

But I'd be for the UN declaring a DMZ around Jerusalem and maintaining it while the sides come to the table, sure.

[GobbleDog 996]

If Israel "handed over" the West Bank, I missed it.

 

Maybe I'm thinking of the "Gaza Strip"? Apparently you know that history better than me.

 

In any case, you side-stepped the question. You think all of Isreal's peace offers are worthless short of offering to completely get up and leave the country. What kind of offer is that? That's not even an option. And what has Palestine offered? Not to blow up busses and restaurants?

[davebg 0]

The British were successfully able to deal with Sinn Fein, knowing that they ostensibly represented the violent IRA insurgency--because in a practical sense they WERE separate.

So, you're saying that the political wing of Hamas, which is based in Syria, is separate from the militant wing of Hamas? You really believe that?

[torridjoe 48]

Maybe I'm thinking of the "Gaza Strip"? Apparently you know that history better than me.

 

In any case, you side-stepped the question. You think all of Isreal's peace offers are worthless short of offering to completely get up and leave the country. What kind of offer is that? That's not even an option. And what has Palestine offered? Not to blow up busses and restaurants?

 

Why is withdrawing from terrority you have no business occupying, not an option?

 

So, you're saying that the political wing of Hamas, which is based in Syria, is separate from the militant wing of Hamas? You really believe that?

 

I'm saying to call it a rational impossibility jumps the gun quite substantially.

[Strike 5,553]

That's because everyone knows that the US is on Israel's side.

 

But I'd be for the UN declaring a DMZ around Jerusalem and maintaining it while the sides come to the table, sure.

 

I'm not just talking about the Israel thing. Name a conflict we've gotten involved in where we haven't gotten crap from the rest of the world? Whether we get involved or not we get shiat. It's the UN's job to intervene in these situations. Noone else has the right to get involved. If the UN asks for help that's fine, but it should be done under the auspices of the UN. As Iraq should have been, and had the UN had any balls to deal with Saddam we might not be where we are today. But the UN is a worthless, corrupt, organization. The sooner we all realize that the better.

[wiffleball 4,790]

WTF are you talking about? Every time the US gets involved we get in trouble. I thought this was what the UN was for? Or are you admitting that the UN is worthless?

 

 

I'm pretty convinced the UN is all but worthless when it comes to world security. They're a fine bunch for humanitarian shiot, but as long as you have a structure where countries like "Yemen" can be on the Security Council, it's going to be worthless trying to get any sort of consensus. - NATO's a much more effective multinational body at this point.

[pingpong 0]

The British were successfully able to deal with Sinn Fein, knowing that they ostensibly represented the violent IRA insurgency--because in a practical sense they WERE separate.

The main difference between the Ireland situation and the Palestines is that had the British offered independence to the Irish, the situation would be over. The Palestines calim that they want independence, but they also stand for the elimination of Israel. Had the Sinn Fein also desired the elimination of England, the situation would still be a major problem.

[GobbleDog 996]

Why is withdrawing from terrority you have no business occupying, not an option?

 

Where exactly should they withdraw to? Is there some part of Isreal that is indisputably theirs?

 

This is sort of like saying Americans should withdraw from the U.S. because technically it's still owned by Indians. Well maybe technically it was theirs. But they ain't getting it back.

[davebg 0]

I'm saying to call it a rational impossibility jumps the gun quite substantially.

Gimme a number. What percentage chance to you think that there is that the two wings of Hamas are not intrinsically linked? What odds would you lay down that the political wing of Hamas isn't sitting in Syria calling the shots for the militant wing of Hamas?

 

Did you learn absofockinglutely nothing all those years when Arafat would talk peace in English to the international press and then turn around a spew venomous hatred and violence in arabic to the people of the Middle East?

[Strike 5,553]

I'm pretty convinced the UN is all but worthless when it comes to world security. They're a fine bunch for humanitarian shiot, but as long as you have a structure where countries like "Yemen" can be on the Security Council, it's going to be worthless trying to get any sort of consensus. - NATO's a much more effective multinational body at this point.

 

Obviously I agree with you. But as long as they exist such that we can be accused of "violating" them when we act on our own, we should not be housing them and providing the majority of their financing.

[torridjoe 48]

I'm not just talking about the Israel thing. Name a conflict we've gotten involved in where we haven't gotten crap from the rest of the world? Whether we get involved or not we get shiat. It's the UN's job to intervene in these situations. Noone else has the right to get involved. If the UN asks for help that's fine, but it should be done under the auspices of the UN. As Iraq should have been, and had the UN had any balls to deal with Saddam we might not be where we are today. But the UN is a worthless, corrupt, organization. The sooner we all realize that the better.

 

The US has the right to get involved if both parties ask them to, which they have, repeatedly.

 

Iraq WAS under the auspices of the UN, and according to our government before the war, it was working quite well (unless I misunderstand what Powell and Rice meant by referring to Saddam as "totally contained.") I certainly agree that if we had left it to the UN we wouldn't be where we are today--and that would be a GREAT thing, would it not?

 

 

 

Where exactly should they withdraw to? Is there some part of Isreal that is indisputably theirs?

 

This is sort of like saying Americans should withdraw from the U.S. because technically it's still owned by Indians. Well maybe technically it was theirs. But they ain't getting it back.

 

Israel proper is indisputably theirs now, as a country. There are surviving Palestinians (and their survivors) with legitimate personal claims to land they were forced to leave in the 40s.

 

Withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza is the appropriate move.

[Strike 5,553]

The US has the right to get involved if both parties ask them to, which they have, repeatedly.

 

Iraq WAS under the auspices of the UN, and according to our government before the war, it was working quite well (unless I misunderstand what Powell and Rice meant by referring to Saddam as "totally contained.") I certainly agree that if we had left it to the UN we wouldn't be where we are today--and that would be a GREAT thing, would it not?

 

LOL. What's funny is I actually agree with you at this point about Iraq. However, we disagree about whether the UN was dealing with Iraq. Iraq repeatedly violated many, if not most or all, of the orders from the UN it was subject to and the UN did nothing. The UN's idea of dealing with Iraq was to have the US patrol the waters indefinitely, and to allow countries like Australia, Russia, France, and Germany to deal with Saddam under the table. Now there's a solution to the problem

[torridjoe 48]

Gimme a number. What percentage chance to you think that there is that the two wings of Hamas are not intrinsically linked? What odds would you lay down that the political wing of Hamas isn't sitting in Syria calling the shots for the militant wing of Hamas?

 

Did you learn absofockinglutely nothing all those years when Arafat would talk peace in English to the international press and then turn around a spew venomous hatred and violence in arabic to the people of the Middle East?

 

More than zero.

 

As for Arafat--I learned that he understood global politics and diplomacy as well as anyone, at times: talk nice to the newsmakers, throw red meat to your friends.

 

 

LOL. What's funny is I actually agree with you at this point about Iraq. However, we disagree about whether the UN was dealing with Iraq. Iraq repeatedly violated many, if not most or all, of the orders from the UN it was subject to and the UN did nothing. The UN's idea of dealing with Iraq was to have the US patrol the waters indefinitely, and to allow countries like Australia, Russia, France, and Germany to deal with Saddam under the table. Now there's a solution to the problem

 

The UN did nothing? So that economic embargo didn't exist?

 

The UN's idea of dealing with Iraq was sending in a comprehensive team of weapons inspectors to judge whether Iraq was an imminent threat. If you recall, their judgement (obviously the correct one) was that Iraq was not. And again, if we had simply allowed that process to play itself out--with the US putting immense pressure on Iraq to comply and the UN to hold them to it--we'd all be better off today.

 

When you talk about "dealing with Saddam under the table," you seem to have forgotten countries like Great Britain and the US.

[Strike 5,553]

The UN did nothing? So that economic embargo didn't exist?

 

The UN's idea of dealing with Iraq was sending in a comprehensive team of weapons inspectors to judge whether Iraq was an imminent threat. If you recall, their judgement (obviously the correct one) was that Iraq was not. And again, if we had simply allowed that process to play itself out--with the US putting immense pressure on Iraq to comply and the UN to hold them to it--we'd all be better off today.

 

When you talk about "dealing with Saddam under the table," you seem to have forgotten countries like Great Britain and the US.

 

Can you really type this with a straight face? As far as the US and Britain, I certainly was not all inclusive of what countries were involved. And with that number of countries violating the economic embargo how do you sit there saying the UN had an embargo? Aren't you the one who clings to the notion that if something is on paper but not enforced it doesn't actually exist?

[torridjoe 48]

Can you really type this with a straight face? As far as the US and Britain, I certainly was not all inclusive of what countries were involved. And with that number of countries violating the economic embargo how do you sit there saying the UN had an embargo? Aren't you the one who clings to the notion that if something is on paper but not enforced it doesn't actually exist?

 

Is your argument that there was no embargo? Otherwise, none of the above makes any sense.