|
|
|
|
|
| | US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran ConflictPage 5 of 13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) |
^^^ Your answer tells me all I need to know.
Yes, I'm sure it does.
You tried to suck me into an either/or false dichotomy and I wouldn't bite.
I try to be clear in my views.
Yes, you make that quite apparent with:
I hate “any” terrorists and organizations that call for the destruction of Israel and the US
But, apparently, not any other terrorists.
If you were truly balanced in your perspective you would also "hate" the Irgun terrorists and the subsequent state-agent terrorism occuring in the occupied territories.
Your statement indicates to me that you believe the only terrorists are those with whom you disagree but never those with whom you agree (you may have noticed, if you actualy looked, that I have NEVER made the corollary statement to yours quoted above. You merely assume it because I'm not in full agreement with you and try to pull that old "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetorical fallacy).
I, on the other hand, am simply interested in 'balancing the coin'.
I don't need to get on a soapbox about Arabs/Palestinians because we have plenty of people (like yourself) who are already more than prepared to do that while sweeping all else 'under the rug'. I merely lift that rug to expose the mess you try to hide.
Are the critics willing to be just as honest in showing their obvious sympathies and support for the people and movements who continually spew hate, intolerance, and call for Israel’s destruction? Evidently not.
How does that saying about the pot and the kettle go again?
You have quotes from the Israeli leaders post war
Yes, I do... from generals and leaders, heroes of the War of Independence... and they all contradict your assertion. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 1:21:29 PM | Mungojoe
Yes, I do... from generals and leaders, heroes of the War of Independence... and they all contradict your assertion.
And I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that Israel was in no danger of being wiped out at that time however, you still have not dealt with the act of war that the Arabs conducted by using 'bad intel' or whatever. I know you have a reading problem so I typed this again, real slow for you .............
what have you that states the presence of the Arab armies was a benign presence bearing olive branches? After all, the Armistice says;
"2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term "planned" in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practised in military organisations."
So, unless amassing the entire armed forces in an attack position on the borders of another country is a planned exercise, this was an act of war.
Explain.
As well, I typed this one out slow for you as well;
Your stats on the UN deaths does not address the question I posed. Have you a reading problem? I asked;
When were you there, what was your job, where were you stationed and can you tell us some of these incidents where Peacekeepers on the Golan were shot and bombed with uncanny regularity?
After all, you said........
What he said
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
Now, you were the one bragging about how you were there, cut the shit and tell us all about how Israel likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity on the Golan according to your experience there. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 1:47:13 PM |
you still have not dealt with the act of war that the Arabs conducted by using 'bad intel' or whatever.
I don't need to address it...
...the statements by Israel's own generals and leaders, heroes of the War of Independence address it for me.
They acknowledge and admit that Egyptian troops in the Sinai did not constitute a cassus belli, that they KNEW Egypt wasn't preparing a first strike and that they made up the excuse after the war.
You are merely hoping to draw me into a generalized 'what if' discussion that is not relevant simply to try and salvage some face from a butt-whuppin'.
What is relevant are the ACTUAL ADMISSIONS of Israel's own generals and leaders, heroes of the War of Independence, who have clearly stated that the position you are asserting is not applicable.
Do I really need to repeat them ONE MORE TIME (with ever more emphasis)? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 1:49:47 PM | RE Msg: 68 by mungojoe:
Those who oppose the radical zionism of the Israeli gov't are Judaism biggest friends since they're the ones who are trying to pull Israel out of the hole that people of a similar mind to the one pictured immediately above have dug for it. A LOT of the ultra-religious Jews would agree with you, as would I, that Israel's commitment to radical, secular zionism, goes against the love of Zion (Israel) mentioned in the Bible and Jewish religious law. However, secular Jews, and secular Americans, don't want Israel to become a theocracy, and a LOT of Americans want the status quo to stay, because it causes much conflict in the Middle East, and gives Americans the justification to stick their soldiers in other people's countries. Those are the only 2 systems available to Israel: a theocracy, like the rest of the Middle East, or radical secular zionism. The only other possibility is for Americans to impose their own forms of democracy in Israel, by force, just like they are attempting to do in the rest of the world. It not only doesn't belong in Israel, and I doubt that it would work in Israel, but it would NOT then be a democracy, as any democracy that is only formed by force, is just a dictatorship of an elite. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:48:24 PM | mungojoe
Do I really need to repeat them ONE MORE TIME (with ever more emphasis)?
No, you need to show that the Arabs meant peace and explain how this was going to end with them all going home without firing a shot.
Remember, the Arabs broke the Armistice;
"2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term "planned" in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practised in military organisations."
Blockading the Straights, expelling UNEF and, amassing a half million troops dirrectly on Israel's borders.
And of course, the rhetoric;
Rhetoric
Nasser: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948"
More Nasser: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
And More: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight"
Syria: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation"
Iraq: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map"
So Mungojoe, given that the Arabs started this war, massed their troops on the border and made these statements, how was this going to end given that Israel could not keep up it's alert status indefinitely as their army consisted mostly of people that were required to keep the country working?
Also wondering, were you bullshitting about Israel liking to shoot and bomb peacekeepers on the Golan? Why? Don't you deal in truth or is it just a hate Israel thing you have going? And were you really there or is that another lie? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:55:06 PM |
A LOT of the ultra-religious Jews would agree with you, as would I, that Israel's commitment to radical, secular zionism, goes against the love of Zion (Israel) mentioned in the Bible and Jewish religious law
Love of Zion (which, I suppose, could be referred to as pure or true zionism) can only serve as a positive for Judaism as a whole while being quite benign for everyone else (and in some ways an example), unlike the radical/revisionist political Zionism that is the present issue. I certainly agree that, if Israel were a secular democracy, void of radical/revisionist political Zionism, that it would, in short order, become just another heterogenous state along NA lines. I'm not so sure that would be a good thing given Judaism's historical difficulties as a minority population.
I really wouldn't have much of a problem with Israel being a theocratic state (democracy can survive in such a state though not of the US kind), even though that too would be falling short of the mark (by man re-establishing Israel rather than the Messiah but that would be an issue entirely for the heart of the individual) as long as it was the wish of the people and the Palestinians had the choice between remaining there or within a sovereign (and unoccupied) Palestinian state. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:09:35 PM |
No, you need to show that the Arabs meant peace
No, I don't.
The statements of Israel's own generals and leaders, heroes of the War of Independence, show all that needs to be shown.
Their statements of intent and understanding are the only relevant point on that matter, not some "what if", face-saving argument you wish to try and substitute for them.
Your opinion on that particular matter is of ZERO consequence to the reality, you weren't one of the generals or leaders who made their decisions as described by their own words in the quotes I've provided. Those are the only elements of fact that have any bearing on it.
When Egypt puts troops on the border of Fandangostan you are free to attempt to justify it any way you like but your present attempt to create justifications that even Israel's own generals and leaders didn't accept (as evinced by their own statements) does not and will not change the reality of it. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 5:47:06 PM | Mungo
No, I don't.
Yes you do. Whatever the quotes you have supplied (and I do thank you for them as it presents an angle that I was unaware of prior) does not provide another possible alternative in light of the massed armies, broken armistice and self admitted and obvious intent to attack by the Arab armies. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 7:01:32 PM |
secular Jews, and secular Americans, don't want Israel to become a theocracy
Agree. Israel has "never" been about the kind of religious radicalism that would lead to the creation of a strident theocracy. Every nation has a certain amount of ultra-religious radicals in their midst. The worry is when they either gain such popularity that the masses "allow" them to take over, or they gain rule by intimidation and force. Israel has not shown either in their entire history. They are the "only" moderate democracy in the Middle East, and as such thus far resisted the factors that would lead to a radical theocratic state.
a LOT of Americans want the status quo to stay, because it causes much conflict in the Middle East, and gives Americans the justification to stick their soldiers in other people's countries.
Baloney. Most Americans don't put even a millisecond of the thought into the geo-politics of the Middle East. You're attributing way too much intrigue to ordinary, mainstream America.
If that thing about "sticking soldiers in other people's countries" means Iraq, and you're saying Israel is the "reason" we went in, you are simply wrong. Please supply proof to back that up?
Those are the only 2 systems available to Israel: a theocracy, like the rest of the Middle East, or radical secular zionism.
Wrong again. Israel is neither a theocracy or radical secular zionism (btw, aren't they really the same thing; you're just using semantics to make a differentiation that's not there?). Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. Can you say the same for Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc?
The only other possibility is for Americans to impose their own forms of democracy in Israel, by force, just like they are attempting to do in the rest of the world.
Just what do you think Israel is now? Didn't you just write earlier about Israel being radical? Radicals don't take direction from other countries very well, as has been repeatedly shown throughout the world.
If you think America feels it must "impose" their own "form of democracy" on Israel, that presupposes they are a rogue nation that needs imposing? If that's the case, then how are they beholden to Washington for direction? I get this illogical double standard of all the time. On one hand critics say Israel runs wild in the Middle East and does what it pleases, and the US government should put a stop to it. Others say they have no independent freedom of action and take all their marching orders from Washington. Which is it?
any democracy that is only formed by force, is just a dictatorship of an elite.
You just perfectly described not Israel, but Iran. Its leaders want to "portray" it as a democracy, but the last "election" proved beyond any doubt (as if it was needed) that it is most assuredly NOT. Iran is just another petty dictatorship masquerading under the veneer of a very "thin" appearance of legitimacy. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 8:14:37 PM |
Whatever the quotes you have supplied (and I do thank you for them as it presents an angle that I was unaware of prior) does not provide another possible alternative in light of the massed armies, broken armistice and self admitted and obvious intent to attack by the Arab armies.
Now you are simply being obtuse...
...once again
Yitzhak Rabin (Chief of General Staff in 1967):
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
Menachem Begin:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Haim Bar-Lev (Deputy Chief of Staff during the war):
"the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."
Major General Mattityahu Peled (the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war) on the "survival" argument for initiating an attack:
"a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war... Never of survival today."
"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal"
Do you understand the meaning of words like "not enough", "he knew it, "we knew it", "does not prove", "decided to attack him", "a bluff"...
...and my two favourites... "lets be honest" and, best of all, "not casus belli"?
Not Casus Belli, from the great General Bar-Lev, Deputy Chief of Staff no less...
Why do you insist on pretending that you know even one whit more more than Bar-Lev? That you are anything greater than "a pimple on an ant's butt" compared to him in knowledge of military matters?
Do you REALLY believe that you are a smarter, more skilled soldier, strategist, general, leader of men than he?
Even they did not believe the BS you are trying to pass off and it was not the basis for their attack.
It's all there, large and plain for anyone to see, why do you try and insist on a motive that even they admit wasn't there? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/5/2009 8:51:18 PM | Mungojoe
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
So, how was the situation ever going to be diffused considering Israel could not sustain the alert status in response to the acts of war Egypt and the Arab armies committed?
That is my contention. Are you just being a twit or do you have a viable alternative other than to have beaten them back? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:18:04 AM | So, how was the situation ever going to be diffused considering Israel could not sustain the alert status in response to the acts of war Egypt and the Arab armies committed?
That is my contention. Are you just being a twit or do you have a viable alternative other than to have beaten them back?
Geez Fannie, you change your "contention" more often than my dear Aunt Emma changes her Depends.
Beyond that, your "contention" (and I'm referring to your contention THIS TIME), is a red herring.
First, and as per usual you completely miss this element, the general COMMON SENSE consideration that there are ALWAYS alternatives (they may not be alternatives that you like or prefer, but they are alternatives none the less).
Second, the alternative to attack was never a legitimate alternative in the first place. The proof of this is found in the quotes I have provided you (ex: "...not a casus belli", the great Gen. Bar-Lev; "...did not prove Nasser was about to attack us", Begin; "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war ... would not have been enough to unleash an offensive ... and we knew it.", Rabin; finally, and this is my favourite because it so aptly refers to your clearly demonstrated, limited, narrow, one track and inadequate ability to analyse military situations so I'll quote it in its entirety with emphasis, "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal", Maj. Gen Peled). Accounts of the Israeli Foreign Minister's visit to Washington provide us with further evidence of this: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat...". There it is, in their own words (which you STILL seem unable to grasp), they did not even have a legitimate option to attack.
Third, several attempts at resolving the situation diplomatically were available, including the full efforts of the US. The great statesman U Thant offered to interpose UNEF between the Egypt and Israel on the Israeli side (prior to that they had been solely on Egyptian territory), Israel refused. U Thant mediated a moritorium with Nasser, to which the Egyptians agreed but which Israel refused. Lyndon Johnson attempted to mediate, Kosygin attempted to mediate; in both instances the Egyptians were fully co-operative but Israel would not consider it.
There were a multitude of options beyond attack, all of which Israel would not consider (or rather, certain elements in Israel such as the rabid radical Zionists in gov't would not consider).
To add, as a final little note the words of the great General Moshe Dayan:
"What do you mean, [the war was] unavoidable? It was, of course, possible to avoid the war..."
That you are unable to see the other options proves nothing about any imagining you may have about the necessity of an attack beyond the simple fact that your strategic and tactical skill sets are virtualy non-existent. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 5:19:15 PM | The ultimate context is this: Arabs in the Middle East have never wanted a Jewish state in their midst and have continually made their desire to destroy Israel known.
The main point of contention will be the argument that in spite of a long history of Arab threats, harassment, providing sanctuaries to anti-Israeli terrorist groups, and outright attacks, Israel has been the main aggressor in the region.
Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
Israel has been involved in six major conflicts since its inception (along with many minor skirmishes and isolated, small operations).
The War of Independence (1947-49 - most Jewish casualties sustained)
The Sinai Campaign of 1956
The Six-Day War (June 1967)
The War of Attrition (1968-70)
The Yom Kippur War (October 1973)
Operation Peace for Galilee (1982)
The Gulf War (1991 – Israeli military was not directly involved, but Israel itself was attacked by Scud missiles ordered by Saddam Hussein/Iraq)
I submit in practically all the cases of military conflicts cited above, Israel was most assuredly NOT the aggressor....but the proof?
Chronic aggressors usually have conquest and/or expansion on their minds. In almost every case of aggressive martial behavior, countries that continually attack others want something, whether it be land, resources, fulfillment of ethnic/religious hatreds (mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide), or to simply crush geo-political competition.
In this light, please tell me how many of Israel's neighbors have been conquered and annexed? Provide the governments Israel is directly responsible for toppling? Please cite how many innocent civilians Israel has killed in all the wars its been involved in, including its birth? (this should be in the hundreds of thousands, if we go by the seriousness of what critics charge).
Citing Israel as principal aggressor in a region historically known for its violence and savagery needs firm proof and irrefutable evidence. I have yet to see it. | |
|
| |
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 6:32:11 PM |
Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
Sorry dude, you don't get to arbitrarily define any debate with your own definitions and givens.
So let's clear some of this up...
by...
Israel has a right to exist.
Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)?
or...
Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland?
and...
by...
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
Do you mean that you may attack first on any provocation and not be considered the aggressor? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:22:20 PM | Mungojoe
Geez Fannie, you change your "contention" more often than my dear Aunt Emma changes her Depends.
Actually Mungojoe, let's stop right here for a moment and clear up your service record. You said;
What he said.......
I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
I was willing to let this go but, in light of the slur against my service and the ridicule above I bring it back. You've been unable or unwilling to supply detailed evidence of these deaths (at one point in order to pull off your lie, you gave fatality statistics from global UN missions and then, extrapolated some figure from decades of work which pertains to all UN missions bordering with Israel which is akin to pulling it out of your ass) but nothing which speaks of the service you performed on the Golan and, subsequently, the deaths of Peacekeepers which you yourself know of through being there as you alluded.
Now, please where you were stationed, when were you there, what was your function and, what events you personally knew of that occured while you were there that lead you to believe that Israel enjoyed shooting and bombing Peacekeepers on the Golan.
Say, ever do the Wadi Patrol? What a hoot! Doubt it though cause you probably have no idea of what I'm talking about do you? Anyhow, the only deaths that occurred on the two tours I was there on (one of which was in UNEF HQ Damascus in the Ops center) were poor Palestinian kids getting shot by our nervous Finns and Austrians and that, was a very rare occurrence in fact, only one death occurred in my second tour with the other being over a year prior to and I only knew of it by going through the Op briefing reports form my predecessor) . So, I should be very interested to hear about the events you speak of.
Methinks I'm dealing with a bullshitter here. In which point, all the crap you spew in your sarcastic postings is like a fart in the wind.
So, you got it or not? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:27:12 PM | Mungo is automatically disqualified debating my previous question since he doesn't believe in Israel's right to exist in the first place. Agreement on that basic point is critical, for the obvious reason if one doesn't even accept a nation's legitimacy, how can they impartially debate concepts of aggression and self-defense? No scenario would be accepted and blame will "always" default back to Israel (Israel-haters like mungo will ultimately play the de rigeur "Israel is lie and shouldn't even have been formed!" card as the backstop when all else fails).
No offense, "dude".  | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:48:04 PM | Define 'right to exist?' 
Even Egyptians, the PLO, Jordanians, Syrian shop keepers ,as well as the Lebanese cabbie I used in Calgary the other week understood and understand that one but Mungo? Uh uh. He's absolutely stumped.
Mungojoe! | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 12:14:19 AM | Excellent article from a writer born and raised in Egypt and who prides himself as a fair, brutally honest, non-partisan commentator of the Arab-Israeli conflict. A must read for anyone looking at the issue impartially.
The War with Israel Is Over - and they won.
by Youssef M. Ibrahim, Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Now let's finally move forward. With Israel entering its fourth week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks. The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends:
Dear Palestinian Arab brethren: The war with Israel is over. You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel . Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine , but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years.
Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness. At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends.
You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa , Haifa , Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation.
Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins. Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank , while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win.
In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day. What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on.
Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel , such as Egypt and Jordan , have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq , frankly could not care less about what happens to you.
Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine , even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods - more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives - while your children played in the sewers of Gaza .
The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former New York Times Middle East Correspondent and Wall Street Journal Energy Editor for 25 years, is a freelance writer based in New York City and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 12:58:14 PM |
Mungo is automatically disqualified debating my previous question since he doesn't believe in Israel's right to exist in the first place. Agreement on that basic point is critical, for the obvious reason if one doesn't even accept a nation's legitimacy, how can they impartially debate concepts of aggression and self-defense?
Really?
Then please quote the exact phrase where I stated that. If you can't than you are simply proving your own intellectual failings.
Sorry dude, but I won't allow you to dictate the terms and conditions of the debate with your own self-defined givens/definitions.
I asked you to define two of your givens/definitions so that we can proceed from a common point of reference and mutually agreed upon givens and definitions.
I will ask again...
Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
So let's clear some of this up...
by...
Israel has a right to exist.
Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)?
or...
Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland?
and...
by...
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
Do you mean that you may attack first on any provocation and not be considered the aggressor?
They are straight forward questions but you seem to be completely unwilling to clarify your meaning and intent.
That tells me, and everyone reading, that you are unwilling to engage in any debate in which you don't get to arbitrarily set your own self-defined but unclarified ground rules.
That tells me, and everyone reading, that you have no interest in genuine, intellectualy honest debate.
That tells me, and everyone reading, that you don't have a leg to stand on unless you are allowed to "cheat".
I have no intention of allowing you to "load" the debate anymore than I would play a game of poker with you where you were allowed to "stack the deck" at will.
If you actually want to debate it with intellectual honesty then you will clarify your definitions/givens and negotiate a mutually agreed upon set of definitions/givens.
However, your response tells me, and everyone reading, that you are incapable of conducting, let alone leading, an honest debate on the subject.
Reminds me of that old saying "winners never cheat...", but I guess you know nothing about that, hmmm?
Mungojoe
Geez Fannie, you change your "contention" more often than my dear Aunt Emma changes her Depends.
Actually Mungojoe, let's stop right here for a moment
Just can't deal with getting your ass kicked can you (good thing you don't have any children to pass that trait on to)? | |
|
| |
| |
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 2:05:40 PM | Mungo, I have stated I recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians, their right to a homeland, and a two-state solution. But you and others continually and vehemently reject the same with Israel, and don't hide the hope of having Israel wiped out, Israeli's slaughtered, and everything returned to previous, pre-Israel history.
Israel is there to stay. They're not going to jump into boats and flee and unilaterally give up a nation Jews have fought and died for over 60+ years. To pretend otherwise is not only blind but stupid.
I submit your way of thinking will "never" resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and apparently has the goal of making never-ending war last to perpetuity. As the article I provided above points out, this stubborn insistence on all or nothing is condemning more generations of Palestinians to the prospect of having no land left to negotiate over? But you keep beating a dead horse. I'm sure Palestinians will thank you at the end of the day when they'll have nothing to show for all that chest-pounding.
To me, "your" way is NO way to constructively approach the problem and perversely revels in the misery and hopelessness of the Palestinian cause. Just who is the obstructionist to peace? I think the answer is obvious. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:04:30 PM | Mungojoe
Even a 6th grader could understand that I asked him to clarify what he meant by "Israel"
My ability to read is fine however, your ability to define what is meant by Israel has a right to exist seems a bit messed up.
MM Israel has a right to exist. Mungojoe Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)?
Like I said, just about anybody and everybody knows what is meant as the question is a complete unit meaning Israel as it is and has been since they accepted UN Resolution 181 and became a nation and therefore, there's no need to qualify the question with Clinton like bullshit but, from your record of bullshitting on your military service, it comes as no surprise. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:20:19 PM |
But you and others continually and vehemently reject the same with Israel, and don't hide the hope of having Israel wiped out, Israeli's slaughtered, and everything returned to previous, pre-Israel history.
Again, please quote the exact statements where I said anything close to what you have alleged.
If you can't, and are unwilling to withdraw the obviously unsubstantiable contention, then you are only obviating your lack of a substantial position and your unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest debate.
I think the answer is obvious.
And your patent unwillingness to clarify, and come to some mutual agreement on, the ground rules which YOU requested makes it abundantly clear that you are both unwilling and incapable of conducting your argument with intellectual honesty.
It also makes it abundantly obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on unless you are allowed to "cheat" and "stack the deck" in your favour by dictating the terms of the debate.
Feel free to come back when you are prepared to clarify the ground rules and actualy engage in an honest debate.
Personally, I don't think you will do so or even that you are intellectually capable of doing so. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
|
|
Home
login 
