origins of Modern Israel

[jbg]

More to the point Ukrainians now have their own country or did you not notice.

Yes, and as far as I know it didn't involve leave anyone without (their own country).

You're just dead wrong on that one. There are ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, and in fact that is one of the country's fault lines. There is a "Russia" to receive them, just as there are other Arab countries to receive what, pre-1967, were correctly called the "Arab Refugees". The term "Palestinian" is a crock.

[Black Dog]

Well, jbg, either that was the longest tennis game ever or you have some other reasons for not addressing the points I made more than a week ago. I've noticed this pattern from you before. You usualy beg off addressing substantive arguments. You've done it here, and you've done it in numerous other threads.

The term "Palestinian" is a crock.

This line of reasoning always kills me. As if national identities are set in stone at the dawn of time, no n00bs allowed. National identites are the product of historical circumstances. They can be grouneded in ideology (there was no Jewish national identity Zionism emerged) or the result of "facts on the ground" (shifting borders, cultural cross-pollination, etc.) So, maybe there was no "Palestinian" before 1967. What matters is that they exist now.

[Higgly]

Well, jbg, either that was the longest tennis game ever or you have some other reasons for not addressing the points I made more than a week ago. I've noticed this pattern from you before. You usualy beg off addressing substantive arguments. You've done it here, and you've done it in numerous other threads.

The term "Palestinian" is a crock.

This line of reasoning always kills me. As if national identities are set in stone at the dawn of time, no n00bs allowed. National identites are the product of historical circumstances. They can be grouneded in ideology (there was no Jewish national identity Zionism emerged) or the result of "facts on the ground" (shifting borders, cultural cross-pollination, etc.) So, maybe there was no "Palestinian" before 1967. What matters is that they exist now.

Very nicely said.

[jbg]

Well, jbg, either that was the longest tennis game ever or you have some other reasons for not addressing the points I made more than a week ago. I've noticed this pattern from you before. You usualy beg off addressing substantive arguments. You've done it here, and you've done it in numerous other threads.

OK, you win. I'll go point by point.

Those standards are not a suicide pact. Even WW II was showing little signs of coming to an end (examples are the Battle of the Bulge) until the rather horrific fireboming of Dresden began demoralizing the German population.

The West rarely does this; it proved necessary in WW II on both fronts, at Dresden, Tokyo, Hirsohima and Nagasaki. And as far as winning "hearts and minds" the Germans and the Japanese have turned from deadly adversaries to fruitful allies. Was this accomplished by singing Kumbaya or I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing?

Apples and oranges. World War 2 was total war and Germany and Japan were aggressor states that posed legitimate threats to the civilized world. There are no comparable threats from the Arab/Muslim world today. As for after the fact, there are numerous factors that compelled Japanese and German co-operation with the conquerors, not the least being the fact that the occupation of the former Axis powers was regarded as legitimate even by the occupied. Another factor scarcely mentioned is the degree and amount of planning the Allies put into post-war occupation and reconstruction, a sharp contrast to the slapdash plan for post-war Iraq. It's clear you posses a deeply flawed understanding of history and it's leading you to some very shoddy conclusions.

Nonsense. The German armies were being beaten on all fronts; total collapse was only a matter of time. If anything, it was strategic blunders like the Battle of the Bulge (a last-ditch effort which expended irreplaceable lives and material in an unsustainable offensive) and an overall deterioration of Germany's military situation on all fronts that hastened the end.

What evidence is there that deteriorating civilian morale had any bearing on the inevitable military outcome?

The evidence is that the soldiers, pursuant to orders given from the top down, were quite happy to go on even wtih a hopeless cause. I do not believe it coincidence that Germany's and Japan's military effort began imploding only after what most people would consider to be brutal, senseless attacks against civilian centers. Only when the real people got into their craniums the real risk that they would die a horrid death did the soldiers begin to lay down their arms, and dissident 'leaders' began to sue for peace. There were plenty of German war veterans left alive at the end of the war. This is proof that the armies were not wiped out. Ditto the Japanese.

As far as the impact of these brutal tactics on the subsequent peace, do consider that Japan is the US's closes ally that is not functionally (thus including Israel) an English-speaking country.

And as far as "(T)here are no comparable threats from the Arab/Muslim world today" try telling that to the families of brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald, slaughtered as they sat at their desks in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

And as far as the "amount of planning the Allies put into post-war occupation and reconstruction, a sharp contrast to the slapdash plan for post-war Iraq" remember, the Marshall Plan was conceived and started more than two (2) years after V-E day, in response to the Soviet overthrow of democratically elected regimes and/or restored monarchies in Eastern Europe.

Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war.

Demonstrably false. We've numerous examples where good-faith negotiations have borne fruit (Egypt and Jordan's peace treaties with Israel being two notable examples). We've seen repeated calls from Syria for dialogue. The problem, as I've noted before, isn't that there's no partner for peace, but that there are too many parties and factions involved.

It is quite true that Israel bargained in good faith with Egypt's and Jordan's leaders, and peace treaties have resulted. It is also tirelessly pointed out by the left that Egypt's and Jordan's leaders represent no one but themselves. The borders that were created by both treaties were readily defensible; Jordan's is the Jordan River, and Egypt's is in the Sinai Desert. If Egypt concentrated troops in the Sinai they'd be readily visible, and such concentrations would draw an attack. The geography of the Gaza and West Bank places Arab popluation centers right at the borders of Israel, and dangerously close to Israel's population centers. Given the Arabs' lack of compunction about setting up "freedom fighting" operations in the midst of civilan centers (itself a war crime) there are far greater constraints in any negotiations Israel may have regarding Gaza and West Bank (Jerusalem being off-limits for negotiation) unless and until there is a consensus among the Arab people accepting Israel.

My point, as above, is not that Israel should descend to Iraqi levels. That should be obvious. However, the shrill condemnation that occurs wehn fully provoked retaliations, surprise surprise, actually kill people, shows the double standard. Arabs blow up a pizza parlor or disco in Israel, or the World Trade Center, and this is justified as the result of "anger". Human shields in Lebanon are killed, and this is roundly condemned. Sickening, and wrong.

First: spelling flames are l-a-m-e (even more so since (a) you're correction of "behaviour" is incorrect-we use the Queen's English in Canada-and ( you frequently make numerous spelling errors of your own: in this post alone we have “fireboming,” “Hirsohima,” and “wehn”. Let he who is without sin... ). Second: if your point isn’t that Israel should descend to the level of the “feral beasts”, well, what is it? Who’s excusing terrorist attacks? What is it that you want? How about this: I hereby denounce every suicide bombing, rocket attack on civilian area, and any other act of terrorism. Happy? Can I criticize Israel now?

Are these "slurs"? Or did the Arabs dehumanize themselves?

No those are terrorist attacks from a variety of time periods, committed by a variety of groups against a variety of targets in a variety of contexts. The slurs are "feral beasts" and other terms that you use to ascribe the actions of individuals or groups to an entire category of people: a.k.a. straight-up racism. A rough equivalent would be to pin the IDF massacre of Egyptian POWs or the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the Six Day war on "the Jews".

What else besides "feral beasts" would you call someone who could spend 3-4 years planning for and organizing an atrocity like September 11? Remember, Bush was only elected President about two (2) years after planning for the attack started. As far as "spelling flames" goes the use of words like "labour" and "defence" is evidence of use of Chretienese.

By the way, what is a "fee pass"?

Is it not enough that you're so terribly wrong that you have to be a douche as well?

edited to add:

A douche and a sucker.

It was created to 'settle' a dispute between a friend of mine in which he claimed that 40 weaponless midgets could defeat 1 lion in a hypothetical fight. Many of my other friends and I tried to convince him that the lion would definitely win, but he would not back down from his argument. After seeing another fake article posing as BBC about 'zombism' in Cambodia, I got the idea to make this fake news article to try and convince him for the final time. (Please 'Join the debate' at the bottom to express your opinion.)

Is it you point that the article was fake? You descended into incoherence and name caling by the end of your post.

[jbg]

You're just dead wrong on that one. There are ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, and in fact that is one of the country's fault lines. There is a "Russia" to receive them, just as there are other Arab countries to receive what, pre-1967, were correctly called the "Arab Refugees". The term "Palestinian" is a crock.

This line of reasoning always kills me. As if national identities are set in stone at the dawn of time, no n00bs allowed. National identites are the product of historical circumstances. They can be grouneded in ideology (there was no Jewish national identity Zionism emerged) or the result of "facts on the ground" (shifting borders, cultural cross-pollination, etc.) So, maybe there was no "Palestinian" before 1967. What matters is that they exist now.

Either there are n00bs or there aren't. If there aren't, everyone back tot he Great Rift Valley!!! If there are, then the Jews have at least asa much entitlement to a homeland in relatively unused land in the Middle East as do Arabs virtually undistinguishable from other Arabs by language, religion or culture.

[Black Dog]

The evidence is that the soldiers, pursuant to orders given from the top down, were quite happy to go on even wtih a hopeless cause. I do not believe it coincidence that Germany's and Japan's military effort began imploding only after what most people would consider to be brutal, senseless attacks against civilian centers. Only when the real people got into their craniums the real risk that they would die a horrid death did the soldiers begin to lay down their arms, and dissident 'leaders' began to sue for peace.

Correlation does not equal causation. I'm asking for evidence the impact of decreasing civilian morale on the fighting effectiveness of the German armed forces. Again: the period of allied bombing of civilian centres corresponded with an increasing number of military defeats. The Bulge Battle, Germany's last gasp on the western front, was over by January; Dresden wasn't bombed until the following month. At the same time, the Soviet offensive was shifting to high gear. (This map shows Soviet gains during the first three months of 1945.) How do you separate the military defeats from events on the home front?

There were plenty of German war veterans left alive at the end of the war. This is proof that the armies were not wiped out. Ditto the Japanese.

And? The Soviets and Allies captured tens of thousands, thousands more deserted rather than die in what was, by then, clearly a hopeless cause. Still others fought to the bitter end.

As far as the impact of these brutal tactics on the subsequent peace, do consider that Japan is the US's closes ally that is not functionally (thus including Israel) an English-speaking country.

So now you're arguing that it was the wholesale slaughter of Japanese civilians that convinced Japan to play nice? Wouldn't have anything to do with the subsequent reconstruction and support from the U.S. would it?

And as far as "(T)here are no comparable threats from the Arab/Muslim world today" try telling that to the families of brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald, slaughtered as they sat at their desks in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

And how does this prove there's an existential threat from the Arab world on the same scale as that posed by the Axis powers?

And as far as the "amount of planning the Allies put into post-war occupation and reconstruction, a sharp contrast to the slapdash plan for post-war Iraq" remember, the Marshall Plan was conceived and started more than two (2) years after V-E day, in response to the Soviet overthrow of democratically elected regimes and/or restored monarchies in Eastern Europe.

But the planning for the occupation reconstrution of Germany and Japan began while the war was still underway. The Marshall Plan was a reeaction to circumstances that developed after the war.

It is quite true that Israel bargained in good faith with Egypt's and Jordan's leaders, and peace treaties have resulted. It is also tirelessly pointed out by the left that Egypt's and Jordan's leaders represent no one but themselves. The borders that were created by both treaties were readily defensible; Jordan's is the Jordan River, and Egypt's is in the Sinai Desert. If Egypt concentrated troops in the Sinai they'd be readily visible, and such concentrations would draw an attack. The geography of the Gaza and West Bank places Arab popluation centers right at the borders of Israel, and dangerously close to Israel's population centers. Given the Arabs' lack of compunction about setting up "freedom fighting" operations in the midst of civilan centers (itself a war crime) there are far greater constraints in any negotiations Israel may have regarding Gaza and West Bank (Jerusalem being off-limits for negotiation) unless and until there is a consensus among the Arab people accepting Israel.

This is a typically ass-backwards view of negotiations that is common. "The Palestinians must give up their struggle first" or some such variation. Good-faith negotiations, by definition, do not allow for pre conditions being put in place. Security concerns are something to be addressed through negotiations, not as a precursor to them.

What else besides "feral beasts" would you call someone who could spend 3-4 years planning for and organizing an atrocity like September 11? Remember, Bush was only elected President about two (2) years after planning for the attack started.

I would certainly consider the people responsible for 9-11 to be base examples of humanity. But you're not talking about them, are you? No, you've made no such distinction. You're talking about all Arabs.

As far as "spelling flames" goes the use of words like "labour" and "defence" is evidence of use of Chretienese

What the hell is this "Chretienese" nonsense? Is it anything like Cantonese?

Is it you point that the article was fake? You descended into incoherence and name caling by the end of your post.

You breathlessly reported the midget story, despite its absurdity, when 2 seconds on Google would show it's a fake. That either makes you a sucker, or intellectually dishonest. As for the other insult, well, your snide nit-picking of spelling errors (despite the fact that your posts are consistently rife with them) and your willful ignorance of accepted Canadian style (pick up any Canadian news paper and see how they spell "colour") makes look like a petty, small-minded jerk. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Either there are n00bs or there aren't. If there aren't, everyone back tot he Great Rift Valley!!! If there are, then the Jews have at least asa much entitlement to a homeland in relatively unused land in the Middle East as do Arabs virtually undistinguishable from other Arabs by language, religion or culture.

Way to miss the point. We weren't discussing the validity of the Jewish people's claim to the land. We were discussing whether the Palestinians can be considered a "nation."

[Figleaf]

Each genocide is unique ...

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes.

You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides.

Think about it FigLeaf....

Hmmmm. Well, I have thought about it, and I cannot agree with your suggestion. You are seeking to make a line of thought and discussion taboo because it may give offense. I don't think we can endorse that principle.

Furthermore, there may be legitimate reasons for 'comparing' genocides which ought not to be prohibited. Comparing illnesses is useful in finding ways to eradicate them, and so done sensibly it may be with genocide.

How for one moment does a genocide in the Ukraine have any relevance to the holocaust? It is not relevant. They are both tragedies. They both saw innocent people die and suffer at the hands of psychotics.

Wait! Now you are lumping them together according to similarities: both tragedies, both had innocents suffer ...

But to suggest one is not unique because another happened why?

That suggestion is your imputation, not anyone elses statement, so far as I can recall.

[PolyNewbie]

Rue:It never fails that whenever there is a discussion of the current conflicts in the Middle East, I read the same

misrepresentations over and over as to the origins of Israel in 1949 and specifically that there was a Palestinian state prior to 1949 and that Jews stole land from Arabs to create Israel....

Well written but is that you Henry ?

[jbg]

The evidence is that the soldiers, pursuant to orders given from the top down, were quite happy to go on even wtih a hopeless cause. I do not believe it coincidence that Germany's and Japan's military effort began imploding only after what most people would consider to be brutal, senseless attacks against civilian centers. Only when the real people got into their craniums the real risk that they would die a horrid death did the soldiers begin to lay down their arms, and dissident 'leaders' began to sue for peace.

Correlation does not equal causation. I'm asking for evidence the impact of decreasing civilian morale on the fighting effectiveness of the German armed forces. Again: the period of allied bombing of civilian centres corresponded with an increasing number of military defeats. The Bulge Battle, Germany's last gasp on the western front, was over by January; Dresden wasn't bombed until the following month. At the same time, the Soviet offensive was shifting to high gear. (This map shows Soviet gains during the first three months of 1945.) How do you separate the military defeats from events on the home front?

It is impossible to prove with historical certainty what happened. Most likely is was a combination of factors. My unguided speculation is that when a country's economy is wrecked, and shortages and inflation is rampant, the government's control slips rapidly. This would likely complicate military efforts. Once the government can no longer ensure the safety or relative comfort of previously middle or upper class people the war is well on its way to being lost. The loss of troops is insufficient.

As far as the impact of these brutal tactics on the subsequent peace, do consider that Japan is the US's closes ally that is not functionally (thus including Israel) an English-speaking country.

So now you're arguing that it was the wholesale slaughter of Japanese civilians that convinced Japan to play nice? Wouldn't have anything to do with the subsequent reconstruction and support from the U.S. would it?

Why wouldn't the UN's massive aid to the three or four agencies devoted to the "Palestinians" pacified that area? I suspect that the diversion of that aid by the locals given control over it to continued fighting has something to do with it. What do you think?

And as far as "(T)here are no comparable threats from the Arab/Muslim world today" try telling that to the families of brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald, slaughtered as they sat at their desks in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

And how does this prove there's an existential threat from the Arab world on the same scale as that posed by the Axis powers?

Basically it winds up being the death of 1000 cuts. If the West is forced to divert efforts into "security" and away from productive uses, the West's instinct is to appease.

And as far as the "amount of planning the Allies put into post-war occupation and reconstruction, a sharp contrast to the slapdash plan for post-war Iraq" remember, the Marshall Plan was conceived and started more than two (2) years after V-E day, in response to the Soviet overthrow of democratically elected regimes and/or restored monarchies in Eastern Europe.

But the planning for the occupation reconstrution of Germany and Japan began while the war was still underway. The Marshall Plan was a reeaction to circumstances that developed after the war.

Whatever planning was done proved to be woefully insufficient.

It is quite true that Israel bargained in good faith with Egypt's and Jordan's leaders, and peace treaties have resulted. It is also tirelessly pointed out by the left that Egypt's and Jordan's leaders represent no one but themselves. The borders that were created by both treaties were readily defensible; Jordan's is the Jordan River, and Egypt's is in the Sinai Desert. If Egypt concentrated troops in the Sinai they'd be readily visible, and such concentrations would draw an attack. The geography of the Gaza and West Bank places Arab popluation centers right at the borders of Israel, and dangerously close to Israel's population centers. Given the Arabs' lack of compunction about setting up "freedom fighting" operations in the midst of civilan centers (itself a war crime) there are far greater constraints in any negotiations Israel may have regarding Gaza and West Bank (Jerusalem being off-limits for negotiation) unless and until there is a consensus among the Arab people accepting Israel.

This is a typically ass-backwards view of negotiations that is common. "The Palestinians must give up their struggle first" or some such variation. Good-faith negotiations, by definition, do not allow for pre conditions being put in place. Security concerns are something to be addressed through negotiations, not as a precursor to them.

Ass-backwards? It worked with Egypt and Jordan, according to you.

What else besides "feral beasts" would you call someone who could spend 3-4 years planning for and organizing an atrocity like September 11? Remember, Bush was only elected President about two (2) years after planning for the attack started.

I would certainly consider the people responsible for 9-11 to be base examples of humanity. But you're not talking about them, are you? No, you've made no such distinction. You're talking about all Arabs.

The so-called "peaceful mainstream" of Arabs has hardly been deafening in their opposition to these atrocities.

As far as "spelling flames" goes the use of words like "labour" and "defence" is evidence of use of Chretienese

*snip*What the hell is this "Chretienese" nonsense? Is it anything like Cantonese?

As for the other insult, well, your snide nit-picking of spelling errors (despite the fact that your posts are consistently rife with them) and your willful ignorance of accepted Canadian style (pick up any Canadian news paper and see how they spell "colour") makes look like a petty, small-minded jerk. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Can't you take a joke? Or is the world humorless (humourless) to liberals and communists?

[Rue]

Each genocide is unique ...

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes.

"You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides.

Think about it FigLeaf....

Hmmmm. Well, I have thought about it, and I cannot agree with your suggestion. You are seeking to make a line of thought and discussion taboo because it may give offense. I don't think we can endorse that principle."

No that is not what I said Figleaf. I did not say we can't discuss a genocide. Read what I wrote. I said it is not fair to use one genocide to put down another or make the other seem less important. You again missed the point.

"Furthermore, there may be legitimate reasons for 'comparing' genocides which ought not to be prohibited. Comparing illnesses is useful in finding ways to eradicate them, and so done sensibly it may be with genocide."

You again completely missed the point. Of course we can discuss genocides and compare them no one says we should not but it is all in the context of how we do the comparison. If the purpose of the comparison is to say one is more important then the other, or one is not unqiue or important because others have happened, then that is where I question. I am questioning the context of how comparisons are used. You Figleaf again either completely missed the point or deliberately choose to ignore it.

"

How for one moment does a genocide in the Ukraine have any relevance to the holocaust? It is not relevant. They are both tragedies. They both saw innocent people die and suffer at the hands of psychotics.

Wait! Now you are lumping them together according to similarities: both tragedies, both had innocents suffer ..."

No I did not lump them together. I questioned to context for why they were compared in the first place. In my response I pointed out things they have in common but to prove the point that such comparisons were not germaine to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Of course had you understand my original point in the first place, you would understand I have no problems people examining genocides and looking for things in common to learn from. My concern was with using one genocide to lessen the meaning of another or use it as a pretext to put down another genocide and then raise it in a discussion about Israel and Palestine. You again completely missed the point. More to the point pointing out things in common, does not lump them together. "Lumping things together" I would suggest is only a problem if it causes generalizations that are not true and misrepresent the uniqueness of each genocide. My comments were completely respectful to both genocides and make universal descriptions no one would disagree with or take offense to.

But to suggest one is not unique because another happened why?

The fact that you have to ask the question means you just don't get it. I am not sure how to explain it to you other then this. If you are at a funeral for a loved one, and someone stands up during the eulogy for your loved one and goes on and on about someone else who died, and then suggests that the other person's death means your loved one's death is no biig deal because everyone dies, how would you feel?

That suggestion is your imputation, not anyone elses statement, so far as I can recall.

Well of course its my opinion I never stated otherwise.

[Black Dog]

It is impossible to prove with historical certainty what happened. Most likely is was a combination of factors. My unguided speculation is that when a country's economy is wrecked, and shortages and inflation is rampant, the government's control slips rapidly. This would likely complicate military efforts. Once the government can no longer ensure the safety or relative comfort of previously middle or upper class people the war is well on its way to being lost. The loss of troops is insufficient.

IOW, you cannot separate the terror bombing campaigns from the broader context of a war that was well on its way to being lost.

But let's leave that aside for a moment and get back to the point you were trying to make, which is, if I read it correctly, that Israel should be as indiscriminate in its treatment of its enemies (the "feral beasts" as you charmingly put it) as the Allies were in bombing Germany and Japan, as only through wholesale slaughter of civilians can they hope to achieve peace. there's some pretty obvios flaws with that plan, starting with the analogy between Germany and Japan (modern, industrial states fully mobilized for total war) and the Palestinian Authority, which doesn't even meet the critirea of a functioning state.

Why wouldn't the UN's massive aid to the three or four agencies devoted to the "Palestinians" pacified that area? I suspect that the diversion of that aid by the locals given control over it to continued fighting has something to do with it. What do you think?

I think the comparison is a stupid one in the first place. Different cultures, different eras, different circumstances, different historical context. I will say this much, though: it's odd to counsel such a strategy of indiscriminate slaughter, given your revulsion for the condemnation Israel recieves when it "accidentally" kills civilians during its operations. For Israel to make the shift to intentional targeting of civilians would not only lead to new and unheard of levels of outrage, but would also destroy whatever moral high ground Israel maintains. In short: you're suggesting Israel become more like its enemies.

Basically it winds up being the death of 1000 cuts. If the West is forced to divert efforts into "security" and away from productive uses, the West's instinct is to appease.

So the Islamists' goal is really to get us to come to a settlement by forcing us to...overspend on our security? Again: I think you're mistaking apples and oranges by invoking 9-11 in a discussion of Israel's internal security issues.

Whatever planning was done proved to be woefully insufficient.

So? Better to have no plan at all, then? How's that working out over in Iraq?

Ass-backwards? It worked with Egypt and Jordan, according to you.

Negotiations worked. I don't believe there were any conditions placed on the table as a prerequisite for negotiations.

The so-called "peaceful mainstream" of Arabs has hardly been deafening in their opposition to these atrocities.

Again: you're talking about several milllion people in a number of different societies, most of which are quite restrictive when it comes to freedom of speech. That presents a practical issue. Then there's the absurdity of expecting-nay, demanding- millions of people from different societies react as one. Do all Jews hold the same opinions? Do all westerners? Really, the "I haven't heard any condemnation from the Arab world, and the condemnation I do hear I'll just ignore," argument is quite fallacious.

Can't you take a joke? Or is the world humorless (humourless) to liberals and communists?

If it was initially meant as a joke, I would have thought you'd cop to that earlier instead of carrying on with the nit picking (in multile threads, no less!) Also, maybe I'm just a liberal communists, but a key indicator that something is a joke is when it's funny.

[Figleaf]

... If the purpose of the comparison is to say one is more important then the other, or one is not unqiue or important because others have happened, then that is where I question.

So far as I can recall, no-one attempted to do that.

You originally objected to any raising of one genocide in the context of another.

No I did not lump them together. I questioned to context for why they were compared in the first place.

Okaaaaay So, it's okay when you do it, but not when someone else did it.

[jbg]

IOW, you cannot separate the terror bombing campaigns from the broader context of a war that was well on its way to being lost.

But let's leave that aside for a moment and get back to the point you were trying to make, which is, if I read it correctly, that Israel should be as indiscriminate in its treatment of its enemies (the "feral beasts" as you charmingly put it) as the Allies were in bombing Germany and Japan, as only through wholesale slaughter of civilians can they hope to achieve peace. there's some pretty obvios flaws with that plan, starting with the analogy between Germany and Japan (modern, industrial states fully mobilized for total war) and the Palestinian Authority, which doesn't even meet the critirea of a functioning state.

*snip*

I think the comparison is a stupid one in the first place. Different cultures, different eras, different circumstances, different historical context. I will say this much, though: it's odd to counsel such a strategy of indiscriminate slaughter, given your revulsion for the condemnation Israel recieves when it "accidentally" kills civilians during its operations. For Israel to make the shift to intentional targeting of civilians would not only lead to new and unheard of levels of outrage, but would also destroy whatever moral high ground Israel maintains. In short: you're suggesting Israel become more like its enemies.

One of the unintended side effects of the UN's largely effective prohibition on nation-state vs. nation-state war is the so-called asymetrical, or guerilla war. This leads forces that are invariably anti-Western to fight out of uniform and from civilian neighborhoods. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon (link to article) is a case in point. Excerpts from article follow:

Whose War Crimes?

December 11, 2006; Page A18

A few scenes from modern warfare:

Mohammad Abd al-Hamid Srour moved missiles across southern Lebanon under cover of a white flag. Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman used the porch of a private home to fire rockets. Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani dressed in civilian clothes, hid his Kalashnikov in a tote bag and stored anti-aircraft missiles in the back of a green unmarked Volvo. The three men, all members of Hezbollah, were captured by Israel during last summer's war.

Now their videotaped interviews form part of a remarkable report by retired Lieutenant Colonel Reuven Erlich of Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

*snip*

Beyond the war in Lebanon, these images suggest how Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras and wait for the likes of Mr. Roth to denounce America or Israel for war crimes.

None of this means the U.S. shouldn't continue to fight with discrimination and avoid civilian casualties. But it means our political leadership needs to speak as candidly as Israelis now are speaking about this enemy strategy, so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground.

The Western desire to avoid sheddng civilian blood cannot and must not be our undoing.

Again: you're talking about several milllion people in a number of different societies, most of which are quite restrictive when it comes to freedom of speech. That presents a practical issue. Then there's the absurdity of expecting-nay, demanding- millions of people from different societies react as one. Do all Jews hold the same opinions? Do all westerners? Really, the "I haven't heard any condemnation from the Arab world, and the condemnation I do hear I'll just ignore," argument is quite fallacious.

The West's safety and even existence cannot be tied to cultural choices made by others. On one hand you say that implying that Arabs are inferior is racist, and indeed it is. If they are equal, they are at least partially responsible for the inevitable bloodbath that will follow when the West decides it is sick of senseless attacks, and being made to walk through metal detectors as part of a daily routine.

[Figleaf]

One of the unintended side effects of the UN's largely effective prohibition on nation-state vs. nation-state war is the so-called asymetrical, or guerilla war.

Ummm ... how has the prohibition led to guerilla warfare?

This leads forces that are invariably anti-Western to fight out of uniform and from civilian neighborhoods.

Again, a quizzical formulation. Invariably anti-Western? Are there not some guerilla conflicts that have no particular interest in Western matters? Chechnya, for example? Myanmar? Hell, even Colombia until the US decided it needed to supress cocaine growing.

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Put them at risk of what?

...so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

Exodus 7:14

[Rue]

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents' date=' onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.[/quote']

Put them at risk of what?

Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk.

...so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground.

"be steeled against this..." I guess this is something like "forcible confiscation" that banks engage in?

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

Exodus 7:14

"

Figleaf there is no doubt in my mind you are a religious role model for me. I think it is wonderful you now quote the Old Testament.

[Black Dog]

One of the unintended side effects of the UN's largely effective prohibition on nation-state vs. nation-state war is the so-called asymetrical, or guerilla war. This leads forces that are invariably anti-Western to fight out of uniform and from civilian neighborhoods. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon (link to article) is a case in point. Excerpts from article follow:

Hardly new and hardly a product of the UN. Nation-state vs. nation-state war is the western way: "asymetrical warfare" is as old as the hills in the Arab/Muslim world. Civilain casualtie shave never mattered much. Our concern for civilian lives may be a weakness that can be exploited, but it also represents our moral strength. Shall we surrender our claim to the moral high ground?

The Western desire to avoid sheddng civilian blood cannot and must not be our undoing.

You're forgetting or ignoring an important consideration: asymetrical war is not a threat to us. The west (including Israel) have ample self-defense capabilities.

The West's safety and even existence cannot be tied to cultural choices made by others. On one hand you say that implying that Arabs are inferior is racist, and indeed it is. If they are equal, they are at least partially responsible for the inevitable bloodbath that will follow when the West decides it is sick of senseless attacks, and being made to walk through metal detectors as part of a daily routine.

I don't believe the west's existence is in danger. The greatest danger to it is ourselves: if we get to the point where our response to the nuisance of terrorism is wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter, then we've given the game away.

[Figleaf]

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Put them at risk of what?

Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk.

Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions.

[Rue]

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Put them at risk of what?

Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk.

Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions.

O.k. now that you have shared with us you are having cognitive processing issues, how do I explain it Figleaf;

1-a man with a beard and Shiite fundamentalist beliefs joins with other bearded men with Shiite fundamentalist beliefs

2-they joing a group called Hezbollah, say it with me Fig leaf, HEZ BOW LA

3-follow me so far, o.k. now these men in Hezbolla believe Israel should not exist at all and that all Jews worldwide are part of a Zionist conspiracy to control the world through the State of Israel and so all must be stopped and war must continue until not only all Jews are removed from Israel but a larger religious war can be engaged in resulting in the destruction of Jewish society since it is a defective religion full of infidels who are evil

4- these same Hezbollah also believe the same about Christians, gays, and Sunni Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, Bahaiis and Americans

5-follow me? so these members of Hezbollah decide they should launch missiles into Israel

6- before they launched missiles into Israel they also decided two go into Israel and kidnap two Israeli soldiers

7- before that Hezbollah said they were liberating Lebanon from Israelis, but now that Israelis were no longer in Lebanon they decided to mass along the South so they could continue fighting Israel-this is all there for you in their journals and papers

8-prior to the most recent kidnapping a man called Samir Kuntar and other Hezbollah went into Israel

late on night-they took a man and his son and tortured them, then urinated and defecated on them and

left them mutilated on a beech-the man's wife and daughter had to hide and the wife smothered her daughter to death preventing her from crying to alert Hezbollah

9-this same Mr. Kuntar is described by Hezbollah as a hero and the Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped were

to be used as barter to get Mr.Kuntar returned

have I confused you yet Figleaf? read slowly so you can get it all

10-after Hezbollah launchs their missiles Israelis die and their buildings are smashed

11-when Hezbollah fires their rockets, they do so from mobile launchers, the launchers are set up

in civilian apartment buildings on the balconies, next to hospitals, schools, and they are even transported in

red cross ambulances

12-so can you figure it out Figleaf, I know its hard, try now, if I take my missile launcher, and shoot it from a civilian's apartment, what do you think happens Figleaf

Since in your fantasy world Figleaf, when terrorists shoot from civilian sites and use those sites as cover, you play stupid when Israel shoots back at the last coordinates from where the missile is shot and say-well it is Israel's fault. You completely ignore the obvious, that had Hezbollah not fired from a civilian site and placed those civilians in harms way, they would not get hurt.

Fig if I shoot a gun at you then grab a woman and hide behind her and keep shooting at you, will you simply wait to be killed or will you try survive and shoot back?

In your fantasy world when someone shoots at me, and then hides behind a woman, and I shoot back, the person who initiated the shooting does not exist, only me. I am the only one causing a problem.

You see Figleaf this is why I am convinced you either have cognitive processing issues, or are convinced that terrorists can hide behind civilians but their actions have no reprecussions.

Just Monday night Higgly Hamas killed innocent civilians. During a drive by shooting of Fatah they killed children.

Open your hippocritical mouth Figleaf and talk about Hamas. Explain to us all how Hamas is to blame.

I will say this one last time and never will I respond to the issue with you again-you have no credibility when you pretend Hezbollah, Hamas or any other terrorist organization that hides behind civilians, is not morally

responsible for their deaths.

In your fantasy world, Israel is to do nothing while its citizens die.

I have met people like you Figleaf. They talk a big talk because they have never had a missile come at them or seen a bomb blow up and kill innocent people.

As my Ne Year's resolution I will not respond to you again. It is hard for me to respect someone and debate them when they are so disingenuous.

[Rue]

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Put them at risk of what?

Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk.

Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions.

Wait, wait-Youre's saying that someone is not putting civilians in danger from missiles being launched from civilian apartment balconies, hospitals, schools, and being transported in red cross ambulances. So I want you to state who isn't placing these civilians in danger by doing this.

Good grief. Its like foreplay with Paris Hilton.

[Remiel]

Rue, to go off on a bit of a tangent, do you think that there may be some cases where unscrupulous members of the IDF do royally screw up, or act malisciously, and then attempts to use the credible justification from actual counter-attacks to hide the crime? In the same sense that there will always be at least a few rotten apples in any group.

[jbg]

Rue, to go off on a bit of a tangent, do you think that there may be some cases where unscrupulous members of the IDF do royally screw up, or act malisciously, and then attempts to use the credible justification from actual counter-attacks to hide the crime? In the same sense that there will always be at least a few rotten apples in any group.

Those people are punished in functioinng, objective courts. Treating Hezbollah as the equivalent of Israel is beyond moral equivalence; it's moral obtuseness or moral bankruptcy.

[Remiel]

Where exactly in that post did you see me treating the IDF as the moral equivalent of Hezbollah? And how do you know that the system works? One thing we seem to lack over here is serious coverage of Israel prosecuting its own wayward soldiers. That makes it seem like Israel doesn't own up to its mistakes, even though they may be, which could unfairly hurt the perception of them here.

[Figleaf]

... Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Put them at risk of what?

Nothing Figleaf. You are right. There was no risk of anything. When you place civilians in the line of fire there is no risk.

Wait, wait -- You're saying that someone is putting civilians in danger from guns and explosions. So I want you to state who is firing the guns and explosions.

O.k. now that you have shared with us you are having cognitive processing issues, how do I explain it Figleaf ...

Explain the unexplainable? No, I certainly don't expect you to manage that.

...have I confused you yet Figleaf? ...

Yes. I fail to see what the point of your bizarre recitation is. Let's try to get back to the point ...

You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles?

Fig if I shoot a gun at you then grab a woman and hide behind her and keep shooting at you, will you simply wait to be killed or will you try survive and shoot back?

I would attempt to take cover, but my firearms skills are not such that I could be sure of not killing the woman, so obviously I should not shoot back.

In your fantasy world when someone shoots at me, and then hides behind a woman, and I shoot back, the person who initiated the shooting does not exist, only me. I am the only one causing a problem.

Let's talk about the real world, not any fantasies you want to draw me into. In the real world, the 'someone' doing the shooting in your example has had his land occupied or his country invaded. The side 'shooting back' actually shot first a round back.

In your fantasy world, Israel is to do nothing while its citizens die.

Israel should try making peace.

[M.Dancer]

You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles?

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet.

Article 28 4th convention

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

The law is clear. No one is obliged to stop defending their lives becasue some terrorist scum have no respect for their own people's lives.

If this sort of naive fuzzy thinking were legit, all the Terrorists would have to do is strap a few grannies to the hood of a toyota, drive to down town Tel Aviv and blow the sucker up.

After all, it's the Jews fault.

[Figleaf]

You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles?

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet.

If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism?

Article 28 4th convention

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

The law is clear. No one is obliged to stop defending their lives becasue some terrorist scum have no respect for their own people's lives.

Yes, that's true, isn't it.

After all, it's the Jews fault.

? ?