 |
| |
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Right now, the Palestinians have nothing, no state, no rights, no security. They've got nothing to lose, and so they can continue kamakazi-ing Israel until Israel gets sick of it and comes to terms. And the Palestinians aren't going to stop, until they have something to lose.
Besides, if Israel has "indefensible" borders, what will Palestine have? |
This is truly unique: Chevitz and me agreeing on something!
Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.
Excellent conclusion!
By the way, what surprises me enormously is that Israelis are not emigrating wholesale.
Is this the result of religious brainwashing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One quote from an insignificant leader of an insignificant military force gets blown up in to the entire reason that the Arab reasons ever have anything to do with Israel.  |
quote:
1948 was a war between Israel and the Arabs states, and the Arabs states with each other, ove the the division of Palestine. |
How did Arab states fought each other?
quote:
On May 15, 1948, Israeli troops were already well beyond the UN designated Jewish territory, Making Israel one of the agressors in this war. |
tsk tsk.
The war actually started in 1947, when local arabs organized into militia groups, and supported by arab states began harrassing jews much more seriosuly than before.
Infact, way before Israel's declaration of independance, undercover Iraqi troops were organizing resistance.
The fact that Israeli troops left the proposed borders to better defend against agression, and to repulse the agressors, doesn't make them agressors.
Israel, infact, didn't declare it's borders, but asked for them to be discussed with the Arab states, in the declaration of independance.
This call, naive as it may be, was sincere and expectedly ignored.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to relate to Israeli troops, as IDF didn't properly exist then... Most jewish towns had their local guarding militias, who protected them from arab agression.
True, there existed some 33 jewish towns in land designed to become part of palestine, and Israel did act to defend them, exactly because there was agression.
quote:
Israel, and all of the Arab states, launched a war of agression against Palestine. |
What complete and utter nonsense, as there was no palestine, ever. The areas designated to be palestine, were never really palestine.
The Arabs launched a war against Israel, treating palestine as a territory part of the "pan arab" unity. Infact, they saw Israel, part of the same land.
quote:
Consider that nearly half of Egypt's army in Palestine was off fighting the Jordanians, or that the Lebanese merely occupied the Arab designated territory of West Galilee, without attack the Israelis at all. |
I've never in my life heard of egupt and jordanians fighting one against the other.
I recently skimmed through a military history book, so I'll re-read it.
The lebanese sent troops and commandos against Jewish civilians in land designated to palestine, and Israel had to protect them.
quote:
Jordan only fought the the Israelis where they were attacked by them. |
basis?
quote:
Both Syria and Egypt did attack the Israelis, but the Syrians were trying to catpure land they considered theirs (according to French maps). |
Well gee, everyone considered Israel "theirs".
Does it make it just?
quote:
Only the Egyptians made any effort to attack the Israelis. |
I'll prove you wrong tommorow.
quote:
Furthmore, after the first truce, it was always Israel who initiated hostilities against the Arabs. |
False.
The first two truces were broken by the arabs.
The last two were broken by the Israelis, out of understanding that the truces were tactical, and decision of pre-emptive strikes.
You obviously don't wait for another person to back stab you, if you are in a cease fire and in a bad position.
The strategic decision of war, came from the Arabs.
quote:
They even assassinated the UN ambassador to the region who had come up with a new peace plan. |
who is they?
It was some lunatic group who was little heard from since, calling themselves "defenders of zion" or some sh*t.
quote:
1967 was a War of Israeli Aggression. Israel had been encroaching on the nutral zone between Israel and Syria for years, and had been driving Arab farmers from the area, replacing them with Jewish immigrants. |
Jewish immigrants are a threat to a neutral zone?
quote:
After some *** for tat shelling between Syria and Israel, Israel begain threatening Syria with invasion and having it's government toppled if it didn't aquience to Israeli land grabbing, i.e., stop fighting back. |
what utter nonsense.
What right syria has to react to Israeli actions on it's land?
If Israel was entering syrian territories, then they'd have a case.
But the fact is, that syria used the "Israel is kicking out the arabs" excuse to bomb Israeli farmers and kibutzes from the Golan heights.
It's like Canada would shell america, claiming it does it because of "opression of the black people in america".
Obviously, USA would have every moral and political right to respond with a military action.
quote:
Syria, which had a military alliance with Egypt, asked for help, fearing imminent invasion. Egypt then created a military situation which was designed to get Israel to back down, since it would have been a two front war. |
Sure, Israel was to back down, and peacefully allow Syria to keep shelling Israeli soil from the Golan Hieghts.
It's sickening that you try and make it sound perfectly moral.
quote:
Instead, Israel quickly shifted and launched a surprise attack against the more poweful country, then tricked Jordan into getting into the war (by sending their airforce at Jordan, Jordan responded with it's own mobilization which gave Israel the pretext for attack) |
Again, I have no idea where you take this from.
Jordan's king was on the phone with Nasser when Nasser falsely reported to him that Egypt is winning and called him to join in. Jordan didn't want to at first, but when Nasser told them that he was winning.
Israel infact, sent a telegram to Jordan, warning it not to attack, promising Israel wouldn't attack first. Jordan attacked first by Shelling Jerusalem from Kalkilya.
It would be idiotic for Israel, to deliberately open a third front.
But it would be very logical for Nasser to trick Jordan into attacking, hoping this would wear Israel down.
quote:
, then dealt with the weakest country, Syria. |
Poor syria... they just wanted to keep shelling Israeli towns and farms. *sob*.
They were shelling Israel and attacking it with Mig airplanes.
quote:
Only the 1973 War can be said to have been started by the Arabs alone, and in this case, the Arabs had been trying to negotiate peace with Israel two years prior. |
Says homski, but there's no evidence for that.
quote:
Sadat first stated his land for peace deal in 1971 |
source?
In 1971 Sadat stated "I'm willing to give the lives of a million soldiers to free the territories conquered by Israel".
Nowhere was mentioned "land of peace".
It was in 26 of July 1972 that Golda Meir publically invited Sadat to meet, in a speech made in the Knesset, calling Sadat "a great leader of a great nation". This was after Sadat decided to kick the Soviet advisors out.
quote:
but of course the man who was trust worthy in 1977 wasn't trust-worthy in 1971. |
People change and attitudes change.
Israel thought Arafat would be trust-worthy in 1993.
How wrong we were.
quote:
In any even, since Israel was occupying Arab terriroty, it was a legitimate war of self-defence started by the Arabs, under international law. |
:rofl:
Then 1967 was a war of self-defense, since Jordan and Egypt and Syria occupied land which was designed to be Palestinian. Israel saw the agression, and decided to put an end to it, by liberating the land.
quote:
They were trying to drive out the foreign occupiers. |
quote:
Israel has been the most aggressive state in the region since 1948. The actualy historical facts do not support a belief that Israel has only been defending itself. |
Your facts can hardly be called historical.
The conversation between Nasser and King Abdullah was recorded and is archived with the IDF intelligence corps. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed. |
Sadly, I feel the same way.
quote:
By the way, what surprises me enormously is that Israelis are not emigrating wholesale.
Is this the result of religious brainwashing? |
Not at all.
It's the result of 2000 years of diaspora and persecution.
It's the knowledge that no one will defend us but ourselves.
It's the knowledge that we have no other place in the world.
It's the knowledge that for 5,000 years of jewish history, we lived here, saw Jerusalem as our capital for 3,000 years, and always mentioned Israel and Jerusalem in our prayer, literature and culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Natan:
Regarding monolithic: I'll try again: what the hell are you talking about? How is it relevant that the arabs consist of many different groups to the statement 'I don't hold it against the palestinians that their arab neighbours attacked Israel in 1948'. Well, other than that it seems to CONFIRM what I'm saying. Geez, try to stick to point, will you?
quote:
I am saying that people shouldn't be exterminated because their dictatorial government is bad.
|
I'm not saying either that people should be exterminated because their govermnet is bad, but you apparently takes this as an excuse to give dictatorships a carte blanche to do whatever they please.
Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites?
Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2... Isn;t that an offense according to Israeli law or something?
Maybe you should tell your parents your ideas of right and wrong... Hopefully they can sit down with you and explain that Hitler was bad man.
quote:
I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't view nations as people - for example, I don't think anyone should be taken to task for murdering the Soviet nation, or for crippling the German nation by lopping of its Prussian and Silesian legs. I think of nations as being made of people, but not people themselves. Sort of like families. Do you generally approve of killing the families of car thieves?
|
If a man steals a car and gives it to his wife, she is obliged to give back the car. If she refuses, she is guilty of theft as well.
Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away.
and in the macroscale, palestinian land is not yours. Nor it is the UN's to give away.
quote:
I don't understand why it's worse when nations violate their agreements to respect each others borders than when they violate their agreements to respect human rights. I don't think that's the position of the UN (the organization responsible for both documents) either.
|
so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...
So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?
Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. By learning from experience, I surmise that I will have to remind you that we are currently referring to this particular post by you:
quote:
You know, they also agreed (UN declaration of human rights) that every person has a right to two weeks of paid vacation. Yet very few countries offer that right, are they all evil for violating the international community's will and their own agreements?
|
Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide. I think it is, and I think most of the world would agree with me. the difference might be slight, as they are both abhorrent, but there is still a difference.
The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.
Now, I'm pretty sure you are going to willfully ignore one of the above sencetences, so I'm going to highlight it: they are both abhorrent. Keep that in mind. No one here, with the exceptions of some Israeli aplogists, claim that genocide is defensible.
quote:
So let's just not discuss it since you don't know anything about it? :Confused:
|
Well, since I adressed the ENTIRE point later, I doesn;t matter.
quote:
The international community could protest against China's occupation of these territories without a nuclear war (or any war) occuring, just as the UN can criticize Israel without that country resorting to its nuclear arsenal.
|
Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power...
quote:
I'm also reffering to the land taken from Poland in the East, and the annexation and colonization of the baltic states. |
Which was in WW2.
quote:
You made a claim, specifically, that many/most people approve of the French Resistance because it fought to liberate its country. I responded by providing examples of other groups which fought to liberate their countries but which are not approved of or celeberated/praised. Do you believe that all evidence brought against point is inherently nit-picking? Would you prefer me to stick out my tongue, or maybe just to say "NO! My idea is the correct one, and don't bring any nit-picky facts or examples to show otherwise?"
|
OK, I assume some guilt here. I let you get away with a complete non-sequiteur, and I didn;t call you on it. As I said ebfore, this is your Modus Operandi, and I should have known better.
These are the posts where the logic disappears:
quote:
GNU: It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...
NATAN: The point is that borders are essentially arbitrary. You've just picked a random point in time which happens to suit you, and said "the borders which existed on this date are the true and just borders, any nation which deviates from them can be struck by suicide bombers and any other weapons available to kill as many civillians as necessary."
|
Now, look at it this way:
How do you relate arguing about whether borders have changed in the last 50 years to whether the french resistance fought 'to gain land from germany'. I can't see the connection. Thus, your arguments seems to me like pointless nitpicking of details. Taken like a big whole, however, it does seem more likely to be a part of your non-sequiteur arguing technique.
However, you did bring up a good point, which I had missed earlier - The presence of restance/liberation movements that are not celebtrated. Your examples were the polisario front, hamas and the jaish muhammad.
Well, the polisario front IS celebtrated as freedome fighters. Take a look at , for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...4000/264052.stm
Hamas is hardly an example, as they are part of the core argument...
Finally, jaish muhammad is a NON-kashmiri group, operating in Kasmir (and surrounding areas). Furthermore, the Kashimir themselves don't approve of the jaish muhammad. See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/S...,632023,00.html
So, do you have any real examples of liberation movements that are not celebtrated? With the qualification that they are liberation movements that are actually trying to liberate a population that DOES want to be free... Unlike the IRA, for example.
quote:
I don't see how the world is better off for it in any concrete way, especially if that principle makes us lax about human rights abuses.
|
Well, the first part makes you a very odd person... You don't care if the world experiences a third world war or not?
as far as the second one, it is again a non sequiteur. There is no connection between the two.
On the other hand, the growing influence of the global community does help PREVENT genocide, except in the moral abyss that is unflagging US support of Israel.
quote:
1) There are pretty much no areas on earth which are completely ethnically homogenous, so someone's going to get disenfranchised.
2) How do you define "Ethnic group?" Could say, Irish-Americans declare an independent state in Boston? Maybe Hassidic Jews could make Borough Park an independent country?
|
I don't think there is a clear cut formula. But I support the Kurdish peoples struggle for their own state. I support the right of the Quibecois to separate from Canada, if that is the peoples will. (I think the quibecois would be incredibly stipud to do so, but people have the right to be stupid, as long as it doesn;t hurt someone else).
quote:
So only democratically elected government's are legitimate? The United States maintained full rights and powers over Germany, was that country's government a puppet government?
|
Actually, yes. This is the position of the US goverment. However, there is again the ideology vs practicality question when it comes to dictatorships.
But no one, and I repeat NO ONE considers an occupying force a legitimate goverment.
Was the US the liegitmate goverment of germany? Nope, of course they werent, and I'd like you to find a text that states the opposite...
A temporary authority, for sure, but not a goverment.
quote:
Repeating your original claim isn't really a simplification. Redundancy is not synonymous with clarity.
|
Well, since you didn;t seem to get it the first time, and you since them mired us in plenty of side arguments, it IS actually a simplification to go back to the simple fact...
quote:
"Liberation" groups which fight against democratic countries are rarely celeberated. |
Well, this implies that they are trying to 'liberate' a people who doesn't want to be liberated... Which negates the whole 'libration' label.
quote:
Well you said that the border change should be fought with all means necessary including extermination, but that killing of millions of people within the 1945 borders of a country should be met with non-violent pressures.
|
Amazing how much difference the word 'preferably' makes, doesn't it? You should check back to the original statement.
quote:
Your point is that demonization is good when done by your side but bad when done by another. |
When did I argue that? My point has been the same for years, that demonization of your opponent is a natural course of actions in a war. I know I argued this with Siro when he whined about palestinian text books saying jews are bad, and I told him that this happens in EVERY conflict, and is not an inherent trait in arabs. I have posted numerous examples of how germans, russians and brits spent considerable effort in demoniszing each other during WW2, and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well.
quote:
Israel will of necessity create a Holocaust, but contrary to their repeated stated intentions and actions, Arabs never intended to harm Israel or its population, just to start "a hugging war." And that view is rubbish.
[/quote[
You know, you really should leave statements to other people to them. I try to tailor my sentences to the recipient. I don't agree with Siros views, but I do know that he understands sarcasm and irony. You don't. If you really want to, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro.
[quote]GNU:You apparently think that if a nation is trong enough to take land from another, it is morally justified in keeping it. I'm just curious whether you are honest enough to allow that to go both ways: If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
No, and that's not the question. |
What do you mean, that's not the question?!!!! I asked it!!!!
So, is your 'no' actually the answer to the qustion, and you really show yourself as a racial supremacist?
Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO
put a check after your response.
guardian, see one of my first repsonses to Natan.
Drake, I will have to get back to you later. You are right about the oil data, the LATimes articles I referred to was talking only about US Imports, not total consumption. I still don't agree on how much influece that has on politics, however. Oh, and if you have the time, how much ot total energy, not just oil, do the EU and US import from OPEC? (including nuclear and hydroelectric. Sweden, for example, produces all electricity by nuclear and hydropower, which means that the imported oil really isn;t that important).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So the fighting between Egypt and Jordan was just an elaborate ruse to trick historians into believing that they really weren't out to committ genocide? |
What incidents of such fighting can you bring?
quote:
Prior to the day the war started, Israel had already occupied territory outside the area they claimed (which was far in excess of the land they actually owned). This means that Israel was already invading Palestinian lands. |
Israel couldn't have occupied anything since it didn't exist then.
There were jewish towns in areas which were meant to be palestinian according to the 1947 partition plan, which the arabs rejected.
What exactly is the rule, preventing jews from settling lands in mandatorial palestine, which they didn't own?
No such rule existed for the "palestinians", and together with no immigration barriers, thousands immigrated from "jordan" to "palestine" and then claimed to live there for ages.
quote:
I'm not holding it against the Jews for not abaiding by a non-agreement. I'm pointing out the actual history, to skewer the myth that Israel was an innocent victim of the Arabs. They were just as much an aggressor at the start of hostilities. And following the first truce (the fifth finally held after the UN threatened to intervene), they were the only aggressor in Palestine. |
nopee.
2 first truces were broken by the arabs.
and you confuse tactical decision with strategical ones.
quote:
The actual history of the 1948 war does not support the myth that Israel was just minding its own business and the entire Arab world ganged up on it. |
What is exactly your source of the "Actual" history?
quote:
It wasn't a state. That doesn't mean that it wasn't invaded by all sides. |
It was a piece of land. "Palestine" is a name for a piece of land.
And it wasn't "invaded" by all sides.
Arabs invaded it first, attacking jewish towns in previously mandatorial palestine areas, and Israeli forces did their best to defend them, conquering territory as they went.
quote:
First off, the Soviets very likely believed that Israel was about to attack. Despite Western rhetoric, the Soviets weren't big on having their allies start wars. After all, up until that point, Israel had shown no inclination not to attack its neighbors. |
That's a fuzzy statement.
quote:
Second, Nassar had just finished losing a war in Yemen. Unless he was an idiot, which no one says he was, he know that Egypt was in no shape to fight a new war. |
Egypt + Syria + Jordan + Iraq >> Israel.
Read the statistics of troops and weapons (or let me bring them) and you'll see why Egypt had every chance of winning.
quote:
And remember, not only did the Israelis attack all of their neighbors, they also attacked an American warship. Despite Israel claims that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse carrier (which looked nothing like the Liberty and which was also flying a giant US flag), they knew damn well whom they were attacking. |
Again, you would know it since you were there?
2 (or 3) American lead investigations into the matter concluded that this was done by Mistake.
Especially in light of the fact, that shortly Israel stopped attacking, when they got what has happenned, and sent rescue forces.
I have a feeling you've been reading a nazi pro-palestinian site as a source for your info.
quote:
I'll give you a source later. I'm too lazy to write it all down now. |
Oh please do.
quote:
Was the West Bank, the Golan, and the Sinai part of Israel or part of Arab countries? Since Israel has returned the Sinai, and no country recongizes Israel's annexation of the Golan, and Israel doesn't claim the West Bank, we can only conclude that Israel was occupying the territory of sovreign states. |
1. Golan was occupied as a result of it being used as a high ground for missile attacks.
2. Israel repeatedly offered the Golan back to Syria in peace negociations. Or rather, 99% of it, to protect the Lake Kineret.
3. Israel offered 95% of the west bank to the Palestinians.
4. The west bank & gaza were never sovreign states.
quote:
Since they were doing so, those states were legitimately able to use force to try and clear their lands of foreign troops. It's international law. |
It's international law skewed by lies.
quote:
Destroying Israel would not be a legitimate use of foce, even if Arab countries claim Israel has no right to exist. Israel is a recognized member of the international community, and has right to exist under international law . . . at it's pre-1967 borders. |
Too bad.
1967 borders proved to be too tempting for Arabs to attack - syria kept shelling us, and jordan & egypt kept sending terrorists.
quote:
Israel couldn't invade Lebabnon and push out the PLO while it was still at war with Egypt and occupying the Sinai. It needed a safe back area, and only reluctantly gave up the Sinai. As soon as the peace treaty was signed in 1977, Israel attacked Lebanon. |
We attacked in 1977? Really?
Pushing out the PLO was exactly as legitimate as pushing out the Taliban & Al-Qaida.
quote:
Carter yanked Israel's leash, and they had to withdraw, but five years later, just as they were withdrawing from the Sinai, (and with a new American president) they again invaded Lebanon, killing more than 20,000 people. |
tsk tsk.
Much of those 20K people actually died not from Israeli actions, but as a result of the civil war between the PLO and christian lebanese that was raging on, when Arafat tried to cease control of the land.
quote:
Look at the problem they have now, having to guard over three million Arabs. Multiply that by all of Jordan. That's why they didn't keep going. The Israelis aren't stupid. They don't bite off more than they can handle. |
Well, according to your logic we could simply "kick out" the arabs again.
quote:
It has always been more than able to defend its borders. |
You know as well as I do, that this is only due to Arab lack of training and effective military, which has changed much since.
They have missiles which can hit all of Israel.
Jordan & Egypt especially has modern armies.
Iraq sends commandos to the territories daily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which countries are still enemies of Israel? Syria, for one. Well, Syria could hit Israel easily without the Golan, and would get destroyed by Israel as a result. It is a fairly weak country, heavily reliant on old Soviet technology. Israel would be in Damascus within hours. That leaves what other country that Israel has a border with? . . . Lebabon, which is already at the 1948 borders.
|
Syria has nice little missiles which they give to Hezbulla, attacking Israel indirectly.
quote:
The other countries with which Israel is still at war share no border with Israel. If Iraq were going to launch an attack against Israel, it would have to go through it's enemy Syria, though Jordan, which would not agree to such an attack, or Saudi Arabia, which would result in a trouncing by US forces, if the Israelis left anything for them to do. |
That's why they send commando units to train palestinian terrorists.
And have you never heard of "rockets"?
It's new stuff, invented some 60 years ago.
quote:
Lybia would have to go through Egypt, and isn't capable of it. Tunisia and Algera and Morroco have even farther to go. The Gulf States don't have the forces, Yemen doesn't have the forces, and the Sudan would have to go through Egypt. |
They have rockets dear friend.
quote:
So, who is the great Arab threat that Israel must illegally hold on to Palestinian land in order to protect themselves? Only Iraq and Syria are marginal threats, and they would be woefully outmatched. |
Egypt is a very serious threat.
Iraq & Syria & the rest can send rockets all over Israel, as they did on occasions.
quote:
I have yet to see any credible explanation of the nature of the threat to Israel that is more significant with a Palestinian state incorporating the entire West Bank and Gaza strip. |
Then read about the daily terror attacks from the west bank and gaza, performed before 1967.
quote:
Israel's military strength, however is, as well as it's nukes. |
It was never proven 
And Egypt + Saudia + Iraq > Israel in terms of military strength.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites? |
quote:
Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2... |
So you are justifying civilian casulaties in defensive war.
Excellent. I'll inform Sharon.
quote:
Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away. |
Amazing how people tend to give "own" new meanings.
Most of the land in palestine under the turks was owned by landlords far away, from whom jews bought the land. The residents can't claim owenership.
Furthermore, in mandatorial palestine, the land was controlled by the government, and everyone could settle where they wanted to.
This means that if local residents owned their lands (which legally they didn't) Jews owned Gush-Etzion, (part of) Jerusalem, and all the settlements erected during the mandate.
quote:
Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power... |
Which proves that UN is politicised and isn't the "neutral" and "objective" body it claims to be.
So why is WW2 annexation legal, while Israeli 1967, 1948 annexation illegal?
BBC has a tradition of not calling terrorists by their name.
They even refused to call Al-Qaida terrorists for a while iirc.
quote:
and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well. |
Gee, really? teach me oh great one.
It's me who is studying here, not you.
Find anything slightly comparable to arab statements: "jews are sons of satan" "jews drink blood" "jews are natural enemies to islam" "jews want to take over the world".
quote:
, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro. |
I wasn't paying attention.
quote:
Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO |
It is legitimate to keep land which you occupied in war.
All states did it, including Israel.
And yes, if Arabs had succeeded in conquering and dissolving Israel, it would be legitimate.
The point is, that had Arabs won, there wouldn't be any "peace process" or any "jewish autonomy". Arabs would have simply wiped the jews off the face of palestine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
So you are justifying civilian casulaties in defensive war.
Excellent. I'll inform Sharon. |
Excellent! So you have finally realized that palestinan suicide bombers are justified, since Israel is conducting a war of aggression!
I really didn't expect you to understand things so quickly, but sometimes people surprise you.
Good work, siro!
of course, your sudden enlightenment is clouded by this quote:
quote:
It is legitimate to keep land which you occupied in war.
All states did it, including Israel.
And yes, if Arabs had succeeded in conquering and dissolving Israel, it would be legitimate.
|
Again, hitler and Stalin would have been proud of you...
Sadly, you will most likely interpret this as base insults, and just shrug it off. But it is not an insult. Your view of this mirrors the Nietschevian philospohy that is the basis for nazism, where strength gives right to subjugate other races.
Come on, siro, you can be a better person than this. Don't let 100 years of social evolution just pass you by...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Regarding monolithic: I'll try again: what the hell are you talking about? How is it relevant that the arabs consist of many different groups to the statement 'I don't hold it against the palestinians that their arab neighbours attacked Israel in 1948'. Well, other than that it seems to CONFIRM what I'm saying. Geez, try to stick to point, will you? |
That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.
Those are your words. My point is that the Arab stated were not trying to hold on to anything that belonged to them, they were trying to grab more land.
quote:
I'm not saying either that people should be exterminated because their govermnet is bad, but you apparently takes this as an excuse to give dictatorships a carte blanche to do whatever they please.
Let's say china invades Korea. should they, ideologically, be allowed to keep Korea only because opposing them would lead to civilian casualites?
Essentially, you are blaming Churchill for the civilian casualties in WW2... |
Your claim is that any number of civillian casualties are acceptable, whether inflicted accidentally or intentionally, and that is not a claim many people acknowledge as just. For example, most people believe that NATO in Kosovo had an obligation to try to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. Even most of your fellow supporters of the Palestinian cause condem suicide bombings, not as inefficient, but as immoral. There’s a big middle ground between saying that you can kill as many people as convenient in the course of a war and saying that “dictatorships [have] carte blanche to do whatever they please.”
quote:
If a man steals a car and gives it to his wife, she is obliged to give back the car. If she refuses, she is guilty of theft as well.
Amazing how simple the concept of ownership is, isn't it? If I own it, it is mine. Not yours. And it is not yours to give away.
and in the macroscale, palestinian land is not yours. Nor it is the UN's to give away. |
So I guess America isn’t mine either; it’s the indians. If you’re going to extend this simplistic analogy accross generations, I think you’ll have to get to work on that. And on expelling the Russian populations of the baltic states and Kazakhstan.
quote:
so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...
So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not? |
Your claim is that invasions are wrong because the International Community agreed, I assume through the UN since you place this agreement at the same time as the creation of the UN. Now it is your further claim that invasion is worse than genocide. So why is it that one UN agreement is more valid than that other? If you’re claim is that the UN makes things criminal, than what is it other than the UN which decides which crimes are more serious than others?
quote:
Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide. |
You seem to be arguing that invasion without genocide is worse than genocide, because you said that aggression can always be fought with whatever means necessary, whereas genocide should first be fought with economic means.
quote:
The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter. |
Which citizens? The victimized ones or the “aggressors?” (in quotes because you apparently include infants and opponents of the regime in that category)
quote:
Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power... |
I don’t recall this criticism. I recall a visit to China by the American president, and I recall letting China into the WTO. China has not experienced anything like what Apartheid South Africa did, even though the latter was only persecuting its own citizens.
Okay, although it was unrelated to the fight against Nazism.
quote:
Now, look at it this way:
How do you relate arguing about whether borders have changed in the last 50 years to whether the french resistance fought 'to gain land from germany'. I can't see the connection. |
If there are no set borders, there’s no way to say whose land is whose. If border changes are allowed (as you say they were prior to the end of WWII), then Petain just made a border change, there was no rule against altering borders. If there are no set borders, than there’s no way to say whose trying to take what from who except in the physical sense of who was physical possession at the moment.
So in short, the UN decided that Morocco should hold a referendum, but that Morocco should be allowed to move in as many of its own citizens as it wants to vote. Now that Morocco has simply refused to do the UN’s will, the UN will withdraw all of the international observors there so that Morocco’s control can be completely uncontested. Yes, the world certainly does support the Polisario front in its struggle. Do you think the League of Nations would have called for a referendum on the future of France? Besides, the International Court of Justice decided that Western Sahara should be partitioned between Mauritania and Morocco, hardly a great acknowledgement of the legitimate right of resistance of the Sahrawi people.
Touche. It was a bad example on my part and I concede the point as it relates to Jaish e Muhammed. There are, however better examples pointed out in the article. Hizbul Mujahadeen hasn’t been celeberated much either outside the Islamic world. In fact, I’m not aware of any non-Islamic nation (except perhaps China, which is Pakistan’s ally) which has called on India to leave Kashmir.
quote:
So, do you have any real examples of liberation movements that are not celebtrated? With the qualification that they are liberation movements that are actually trying to liberate a population that DOES want to be free... Unlike the IRA, for example. |
Aggression should be accepted just because the locals in a particular area find it convenient? Isn’t that, from your perspective, like saying that you can negotiate with terrorists if the hostages want it?
quote:
Well, the first part makes you a very odd person... You don't care if the world experiences a third world war or not? |
I don’t see how what you are so lauding makes one any less likely.
quote:
I don't think there is a clear cut formula. |
Thank you, that’s what I think about all borders. And that’s why I’m reluctant to kill millions of non-combatants over them.
Also, there’s another issue, which is how to draw the boundaries fairly. I’ll take the Kurdish example, because we both agree that the Kurds deserve some sort of state. But the question becomes, what should its borders be? Most people would think it wrong to include the mostly Arab city of Mosul in Kurdistan, even though if the city was united with Kurdistan and a referendum held, the Kurds would have a big enough majority for independence. On the other hand, I think most people would take issue with making the Arab districts of Kirkuk part of Iraq, since they are so far in Kurdistan and so small in both geography and population. But where do we draw the lines through the grey areas, of which there are bound to be many in any such case?
quote:
Actually, yes. This is the position of the US goverment. |
Firstly, the position of the US government is not that of the UN or the international community. Secondly, if that were the US position, we would not recognize the government of Syria, or China, or many other countries. Even when the US is at war with a country, it usually acknowledges that the government is in fact the government. We even fought to defend the non-Democratic Kuwaiti government, without securing any reassurances of democracy. In fact, I don’t know of any calls for democratization in Kuwait, or in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or any of the other dozens of dictatorships the US has supported.
quote:
However, there is again the ideology vs practicality question when it comes to dictatorships. |
Do you think the US really wants to have free elections in say, Algeria or Kuwait or Yemen or even Brunei? It’s not like we have some great obligation or pressing need for these countries friendships. It’s our doctrine that democratic governments are preferable, but I don’t think we say that non-democratic governments are puppets or pretenders; we only say that as part of the propaganda which accompanies our wars against governments which happen to be non-democratic.
quote:
But no one, and I repeat NO ONE considers an occupying force a legitimate goverment. |
Tell me, does the US consider occupied Kashmir to be a part of India or Pakistan and not China? Do we refuse to cover such areas in our trade agreements? Does even the Polish government consider Vilnius to be ilegally occupied by Lithuania?
quote:
Was the US the liegitmate goverment of germany? Nope, of course they werent, and I'd like you to find a text that states the opposite... |
So tell me, who was the legitimate government of Germany? Clearly, it was the allied occupation administration.
quote:
A temporary authority, for sure, but not a goverment. |
Well we may have described it as temporary (do you have a source? I’m interested), it is noteworthy the Russian zone in the east, directly analogous to the American zone, was mostly gobbled up by other countries in a permanent occupation which doesn’t seem to bother you much.
quote:
Well, since you didn;t seem to get it the first time, and you since them mired us in plenty of side arguments, it IS actually a simplification to go back to the simple fact... |
quote:
Well, this implies that they are trying to 'liberate' a people who doesn't want to be liberated... Which negates the whole 'libration' label. |
Not true, because a democratic country may not allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole. For example, when the Freemen of Montana tried this, the federal government had a different take. On a larger scale, there was the American civil war, Basque separatists, and Chechneya.
quote:
Amazing how much difference the word 'preferably' makes, doesn't it? You should check back to the original statement. |
Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.
The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.
So we learn that:
Fighting against a border change can move directly to the nuclear weapons phase, but but fighting genocide should use non-violent means. You must understand that non-violent methods will give the killers more time to conduct genocide than violent methods. The state which changes borders however, can be fought violently and immediately, even though there may not be any risk to life or limb.
quote:
When did I argue that? My point has been the same for years, that demonization of your opponent is a natural course of actions in a war. I know I argued this with Siro when he whined about palestinian text books saying jews are bad, and I told him that this happens in EVERY conflict, and is not an inherent trait in arabs. I have posted numerous examples of how germans, russians and brits spent considerable effort in demoniszing each other during WW2, and how Israel textbooks demonize palestinians as well. |
Yet you seem to think that Palestinian demonization and its effects will end with the war. I disagree, but in keeping with your past suggestion to limit our argument to one issue at a time, I’d like to drop this to concentrate on the issue of borders and how they are changed.
quote:
You know, you really should leave statements to other people to them. I try to tailor my sentences to the recipient. I don't agree with Siros views, but I do know that he understands sarcasm and irony. You don't. If you really want to, I can explain the previous statement to you, or you could ask Siro. |
You respond to things I post in response to the statements of others, so I think it’s a bit silly to ask me not to speak unless spoken to.
quote:
What do you mean, that's not the question?!!!! I asked it!!!!
So, is your 'no' actually the answer to the qustion, and you really show yourself as a racial supremacist?
Why don't you just answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'? I'll try again:If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?
YES
NO
put a check after your response. |
Whether it’s morally justifiable depends on the circumstances, so I can’t “check one” any more than you can check one to the question “should a man have his money taken from him,” just as in the latter has a different answer depending on how the man got his money, who the taker is and what the taker intends to do with it, so in the former the question depends on a number of factors. Certainly though, I’m not arguing that it was unjust of Egypt and Jordan to grab Kfar Darom and Kfar Etzion from Israel in the 1948 war. I can’t answer your question any more than I can answer “would it be right for Israel to invade and dissolve an Arab nation,” in both cases it depends on exactly what is dissolved, how it is dissolved, and what is put in to replace it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Your mistake is in believing that everything was handy dandy before 1967, and then, suddenly the Arabs began hating Israel, but only because of the occupation. |
No, but it wasn't relavent. The Arab states had shown no inclination to try and invade Israel after 1948, and they didn't try all that hard in 1948.
quote:
You yourself described (quite affectionately) Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan. |
Yes, and I left out almost everything Israel did. Would you like a quote from former Minister of Defence, Moshe Dyan? When asked about the clashes in the Golan he stated,
I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some ... demilitarized [off-limits] area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. (Tal, Rami, "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan,"New York Times, May 11, 1997, 3)
quote:
You omitted the PLO was set up in 1964 to free "all" of "palestine". |
I also ommitted Israeli terror attacks on Palestinian refugee camps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Maybe you should tell your parents your ideas of right and wrong... Hopefully they can sit down with you and explain that Hitler was bad man.
|
Why was Hitler a bad man?
Because he took land?
Well, much of the land he took in the early phases of the war was land that had been German once and where a large portion of the population where ethnic Germans. So, according to you, it should be perfectly okay for Hitler to take that land, since he was merely taking back what rightfully belonged to him. This is the exact same argument that Hitler himself used. (-And yes, he would have been proud...)
So, if taking land wasn't a problem, then why was Hitler bad?
Because he killed millions??
Well, according to you, that is perfectly acceptable as well, as long as you have a "legitimate" reason - which Hitler believed he had.
So... if all of these things are morally justifiable, then could you please explain the following:
- Exactly why was Hitler a bad man?
- Who decides who is a bad man and who is not?
- Exactly how do you determine who is bad and who is not.
- Would you agree to my killing your sister because "Hitler was a bad man"?
-Or because "Sharon won't listen to me"?
Last edited by Guardian on 12-04-2002 at 15:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
A bus exploded in Jerusalem, near the Mahne Yehuda market. No more information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalgetti
yes. Sikander you're correct. I feel it something around 3,500-4000 , Siro. |
The esodus was 3300 years ago. Add to that 400 years of slavery in Egypt, it's 3700. The patriarchs period is another 300-500 years, so you're right. 4000 years, plus-minus couple centuries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Those are your words. My point is that the Arab stated were not trying to hold on to anything that belonged to them, they were trying to grab more land.
|
Not relevant. And quite frankly, not lucid, either... How is taking back what is yours considered 'grabbing more land'?
But anyway, the question is whether the palestinians are to blame for what their arab neighbours did, and I think the answer is obvious.
quote:
Your claim is that any number of civillian casualties are acceptable, whether inflicted accidentally or intentionally, and that is not a claim many people acknowledge as just. For example, most people believe that NATO in Kosovo had an obligation to try to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. |
And you still have a problem separating what I'm saying from your odd interpretations. Maybe the problem is mine, for assuming you are an intelligent adult...
Try to see it this way: Police have a mandate to shoot people in attempts to stop crime. This is uncontested. Does this in any imply that police can shoot people indiscriminately, or even that we'd PREFER police to shoot people instead of arresting them? Of course not.
And yet, this is your conclusion of my remark that the world has accepted that civilian casulties are acceptable in order to stop aggression.
Sad.
Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence.
But I guess that doesn't fit in your preconcieved view of the world... where, if I have understood things correcly, anyone who disagrees that jews have the right to kill anyone weaker then them and steal their land is an anti-semite.
quote:
There’s a big middle ground between saying that you can kill as many people as convenient in the course of a war and saying that “dictatorships [have] carte blanche to do whatever they please.” |
So where is this middle ground? how many millions of civilians are justified? 30 million civilians died in WW2, 15 of them german. That was apparently justified. Or is it a percentage?
Or could it be that you are again confusing morality with practicality?
quote:
So I guess America isn’t mine either; it’s the indians. If you’re going to extend this simplistic analogy accross generations, I think you’ll have to get to work on that. And on expelling the Russian populations of the baltic states and Kazakhstan.
|
no, America is mine because my middlke initial is 'I'. oh, that doessn't make sense? So? Neither does your example. We've been through it about sixty billion times.
quote:
Now it is your further claim that invasion is worse than genocide. |
I get the feeling that these arguemnts are constructed thus:
Gnu: i think green is the prettiest color
N
atan: aha, so you think genocide is OK.
Gnu: no, the color green doesn;t have antyhing to do with genocide.
Natan: but the color green supports suicide bombings.
Gnu: I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. all I said was that I think green is the prettiest color.
Natan: so you think genocide is OK.
Repeat until Gnu runs out of time.
Would you mind telling me, in detail how you came up with the previous conclusion? What statements of mine supports the idea that invasion is 'worse' than genocide?
If you are referring to this statement: quote:
Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide. I think it is, and I think most of the world would agree with me. the difference might be slight, as they are both abhorrent, but there is still a difference.
The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.
Now, I'm pretty sure you are going to willfully ignore one of the above sencetences, so I'm going to highlight it: they are both abhorrent. Keep that in mind. No one here, with the exceptions of some Israeli aplogists, claim that genocide is defensible. |
As anyone even moderatly literate can see, I make no value judgement about genocide vs aggression. But they are DIFFERENT crimes.
Now, up to this point, we've been dealing with the people in a neighbouring country, and what they are justified in doing.
Perhaps this is what you haven't understood. We haven't dealt at all with what the citizens if a country carrying out genocide on its own citizens would be justified in doing. I think the same rule goes here. Genocide is a crime of aggression. The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression.
IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS TASK TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESISTING AGGRESSION.
BTW, you are getting predictable. this is a quote from my previous post:
quote:
so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...
So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?
Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. By learning from experience, I surmise that I will have to remind you that we are currently referring to this particular post by you:
|
Note the Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. part.
so, would you mind addressing my question: So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?
Maybe I should declare from the beginning that if you don't answer my questions, I shoiuld just repost it and ignore the non-sequiteurs... would save me a lot of time...
quote:
I don’t recall this criticism. |
You should try reading the news. the last UN attempt was before christmas, but the chinese managed to shut it down. Of course, most attention was on the Israeli-US screaming about how the arabs wanted the UN to condemn Israel...
quote:
I recall a visit to China by the American president, and I recall letting China into the WTO. |
well, since Bush calls sharon 'an honorable man', i don't think he is the best of examples... and the WTO is not a political body, it is an economic one.
quote:
If there are no set borders, there’s no way to say whose land is whose. |
OK, I see what you mean, but your basic premise is still absurd.
quote:
If border changes are allowed (as you say they were prior to the end of WWII) |
Hey, I made no such statement. i said that after WW2, the world leaders finally sat down to hammer out an agreement that aggression is not an acceptable means to change borders. (the 'finaly' part isn;t exaclty true, they did sit down after WW1 as well, but they failed that time.)
Prior to the end of WW2, there were still treaties bweteen nations, and a treaty is legally binding. Germany, for example, signed a treaty that they gave up all claims on lands outside the 1919 german borders in order to recieve loans and end occupation of the rhineland. Consequently, the german invasion of Poland and the resulting events were very much acts of aggression.
Interestingly, many of the german generals in the nurnberg trials were tried not for warcrimes (i.e. genocide) but for breaking the treaties (i.e. acts of aggression).
[/quote]I don’t see how what you are so lauding makes one any less likely.
[/quote]
Well, we haven't had one since WW2. Furthermore, take a look at regions like Africa and south america. Despite a multitude of similar strength countries, no wars...
quote:
Thank you, that’s what I think about all borders. |
Well, the problem is that borders ARE clear cut. The ONLY acceptable ways for borders to change is either if a country is split in smaller parts, if two legitimate goverments decide to join or if a goverment ceedes territory as part of a deal (non-coerced).
Obviously, neither WW2 nor Israels occupation of palestine is included under any of those conditions.
quote:
Firstly, the position of the US government is not that of the UN or the international community. Secondly, if that were the US position, we would not recognize the government of Syria, or China, or many other countries. Even when the US is at war with a country, it usually acknowledges that the government is in fact the government. We even fought to defend the non-Democratic Kuwaiti government, without securing any reassurances of democracy. In fact, I don’t know of any calls for democratization in Kuwait, or in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or any of the other dozens of dictatorships the US has supported.
|
Well, the first part was intended as further illustration. Take that as you will.
As for the second, it was covered in the statement below.
quote:
Do you think the US really wants to have free elections in say, Algeria or Kuwait or Yemen or even Brunei? It’s not like we have some great obligation or pressing need for these countries friendships. It’s our doctrine that democratic governments are preferable, but I don’t think we say that non-democratic governments are puppets or pretenders; we only say that as part of the propaganda which accompanies our wars against governments which happen to be non-democratic. |
What has that got to do with things? Try telling yourself 'ideology vs. practicality, which one was I asking about' a few times, and you might understand my original post.
quote:
Tell me, does the US consider occupied Kashmir to be a part of India or Pakistan and not China? |
Well, considering that Kashmir joined with India by free will, and the world considers is part of India, I fail to see the point.
Whether Kashmir should get independece is another question, fit for another thread.
Vilnius? Poland? Que?
quote:
So tell me, who was the legitimate government of Germany? Clearly, it was the allied occupation administration.
|
No, the allied occupation administration was an occupation administration. Kind of obvious, don't you think?
Germany did not have a legitimate goverment until the first free elections after the war.
quote:
Not true, because a democratic country may not allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole. For example, when the Freemen of Montana tried this, the federal government had a different take. On a larger scale, there was the American civil war, Basque separatists, and Chechneya.
|
umm, a democratic country being democartic assumes that the goverment rules on the mandate of the whole. if the goiverment grants cessation, it is legal.
regarding the Basques and the Checenyans, I support their bid for freedom.
regarding the freemen and the south, it is a different situation. Members of an ethinc group (or a selfdeclared group, such as the freemen or 'southerners'), who move into a land already established, obviously has no right to demand their own country. If you move somewhere, you assume the responsibilites of your new country. Likewise, no matter how many jews moved into palestine, they still don';t have the right to declare a jewish state...
quote:
Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.
The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.
So we learn that:
Fighting against a border change can move directly to the nuclear weapons phase, but but fighting genocide should use non-violent means. You must understand that non-violent methods will give the killers more time to conduct genocide than violent methods. The state which changes borders however, can be fought violently and immediately, even though there may not be any risk to life or limb.
|
ah, true to Natan style. Ignore the explanations, and keep insisting on your absurd represetnation of things.
well, just on the miniscule chance that still didn't actually understand what I previously wrote, let me highlight pertient parts:
The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.
Now, try to guess when non-vionet means are nor possible. could it be when time is of the essence, such as in a genocide situation? Not to mention if the number of people killed would be less than the military casualty due to military intervention? hopefully you feel chagrin that I had to explain the obvious for you, yet again... Or you feel elated that I was forced to waste time..
Regarding the nuclear means, I've been through it roughly eighty times by now.
A) An aggressor should be fought with whatever it takes to end the aggression.
B) Any act minimizing casualties among the victims are inherently justified.
C) Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM.
If this means nuclear annihilation, so be it. This is an extreme even, however, as an aggressor, even an insane one, would capitulate before his country is gone.
quote:
You respond to things I post in response to the statements of others, so I think it’s a bit silly to ask me not to speak unless spoken to. |
Well, i admitted that I made a mistake. Are you saying that you responded to my statement to Siro by mistake?
quote:
Whether it’s morally justifiable depends on the circumstances, so I can’t “check one” any more than you can check one to the question “should a man have his money taken from him,” just as in the latter has a different answer depending on how the man got his money, who the taker is and what the taker intends to do with it, so in the former the question depends on a number of factors. Certainly though, I’m not arguing that it was unjust of Egypt and Jordan to grab Kfar Darom and Kfar Etzion from Israel in the 1948 war. I can’t answer your question any more than I can answer “would it be right for Israel to invade and dissolve an Arab nation,” in both cases it depends on exactly what is dissolved, how it is dissolved, and what is put in to replace it. |
so, I'm taking this as 'It is OK for jews to invade and occupy land, but not OK for non-jews to invade and occupy Israel'. Kind of figured.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Not relevant. And quite frankly, not lucid, either... How is taking back what is yours considered 'grabbing more land'? |
That’s the whole point - Mandatory Palestine was not Syria’s or Egypt’s to “take back.”
quote:
But anyway, the question is whether the palestinians are to blame for what their arab neighbours did, and I think the answer is obvious. |
No, the question is were the Arabs justified in trying to destroy Israel and grab the land. You seem to be saying that they were.
quote:
And you still have a problem separating what I'm saying from your odd interpretations. Maybe the problem is mine, for assuming you are an intelligent adult...
Try to see it this way: Police have a mandate to shoot people in attempts to stop crime. This is uncontested. Does this in any imply that police can shoot people indiscriminately, or even that we'd PREFER police to shoot people instead of arresting them? Of course not.
And yet, this is your conclusion of my remark that the world has accepted that civilian casulties are acceptable in order to stop aggression. |
I don’t see how you can possibly interpret the application of the principle that “Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM” to the Kosovo conflict as having anything to do with whether police would prefer to shoot people instead of arresting them. I don’t see how you got from point A to point B at all. Complete non-sequiter. This is not about whether NATO would prefer not to kill Serbian civillians, this is about whether NATO, once it is forced to take military action, has an obligation to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. In short, the question is, once the police are forced to shoot at the armed owner of the drug den, can they kill as many of the customers as they want while they’re at it?
quote:
Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence. |
Genocide includes killing people on the basis of nationality. But aside from that technical aspect, I just don’t think it makes it less horrifying that you want to kill innocent people that you’d let them go if they didn’t interfere with your political goals.
quote:
But I guess that doesn't fit in your preconcieved view of the world... where, if I have understood things correcly, anyone who disagrees that jews have the right to kill anyone weaker then them and steal their land is an anti-semite. |
That’s just absurd. Do I call che and ramo anti-semites? Do I call Imran an anti-semite? No, I don’t. Do I even call you an anti-semite?
quote:
So where is this middle ground? how many millions of civilians are justified? 30 million civilians died in WW2, 15 of them german. That was apparently justified. Or is it a percentage? |
Germany was a special case because of the genocide, which meant that even if we killed millions of German civillians, we probably made a net savings of human life by preventing them from exterminating Slavs and others. Japan was a similar case, what with what they were doing in China. But of course, there are grey areas. People argue about whether bombing Dresden and dropping the nuclear bomb were morally acceptable acts.
quote:
no, America is mine because my middlke initial is 'I'. oh, that doessn't make sense? So? Neither does your example. We've been through it about sixty billion times. |
So tell me, at how many different times do I have to sell your car before it becomes no longer yours? You’re the one who’s using this poor analogy to describe how borders change.
quote:
Would you mind telling me, in detail how you came up with the previous conclusion? What statements of mine supports the idea that invasion is 'worse' than genocide?
As anyone even moderatly literate can see, I make no value judgement about genocide vs aggression. But they are DIFFERENT crimes. |
Comparing robbery to robbery followed by murder is very different from comparing robbery to murder. Similarly, comparing genocide to aggression followed by genocide is not the same thing as comparing genocide and aggression. When you said that aggression should be fought by “all means necessary” but that genocide should be fought by peaceful means “If possible” (note that the phrase “all means necessary” was ommitted from the discussion of genocide, and the phrase “peaceful means if possible” ommitted from the discussion of aggression) I assumed that you thought aggression was worse than genocide. Generally, if one crime is fought with more serious means, it is a more serious crime. However, you have sinced either clarified or changed your position, so the issue is moot.
quote:
Now, up to this point, we've been dealing with the people in a neighbouring country, and what they are justified in doing.
Perhaps this is what you haven't understood. We haven't dealt at all with what the citizens if a country carrying out genocide on its own citizens would be justified in doing. I think the same rule goes here. Genocide is a crime of aggression. |
Here’s what I don’t understand:
“The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.“
Which citizens are we reffering to who have a responsibility in the first case? The perpetrators of the genocide or the victims?
quote:
The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression.
IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS TASK TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESISTING AGGRESSION. |
Now is it your claim that murdering all the citizens of an enemy country is not genocide or that that would be an exception to the rule “The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression?”
quote:
so, would you mind addressing my question: So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not? |
If by that you mean that some violations of human rights are worse than others (I think that’s what you mean) then I whole-heartedly agree. I hope you do too.
quote:
You should try reading the news. the last UN attempt was before christmas, but the chinese managed to shut it down. Of course, most attention was on the Israeli-US screaming about how the arabs wanted the UN to condemn Israel... |
So in short, the UN has not criticized China but merely “attempted” to do so. That’s meaningless. That’s like saying that the US congress attempted to pass a bill but failed because the Republicans managed to shut it down. If a body has a procedure for passing bills/resolutions, and a resolution does not pass, then the body did not endorse the resolution. You already said that “Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power” Maybe you could give me an example of the international community criticizing China then?
quote:
well, since Bush calls sharon 'an honorable man', i don't think he is the best of examples... |
It was Clinton who made the visit.
quote:
and the WTO is not a political body, it is an economic one. |
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to have economic dealings with aggressors, as long as you make a half-hearted effort to get the UN to issue a meaningless condemnation of them afterwards? We can have increased economic dealings with China while fully supporting the right of the Tibetans to do whatever necessary to end Chinese aggression? That doesn’t sound right to me.
quote:
Hey, I made no such statement. i said that after WW2, the world leaders finally sat down to hammer out an agreement that aggression is not an acceptable means to change borders. (the 'finaly' part isn;t exaclty true, they did sit down after WW1 as well, but they failed that time.)
Prior to the end of WW2, there were still treaties bweteen nations, and a treaty is legally binding. Germany, for example, signed a treaty that they gave up all claims on lands outside the 1919 german borders in order to recieve loans and end occupation of the rhineland.
|
Is it meaningful to say that you “recieved loans” when at the same time you are ordered to pay vast reparations? And is a treaty made under durress binding?
quote:
Interestingly, many of the german generals in the nurnberg trials were tried not for warcrimes (i.e. genocide) but for breaking the treaties (i.e. acts of aggression). |
Yes but IIRC, no one was punished solely for “waging aggressive war.” It was the weakest charge, because the allies were guilty of it too in several cases.
quote:
Well, we haven't had one since WW2. |
I think that has a lot to do with the fact that one side was clearly defeated. It also has a lot to do with the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. If you really think this proves that the UN charter ban on aggression has been effective, I think we should also discuss the control of other countries without official annexation, a practice which technically worked around changing attitudes without changing the underlying imperialist policy. Stalin annexed Poland in 1945 just as surely as if he’d made it the “Polish SSR,” but maintained the illusion of independence. So nothing really changed; nations still fought each other and grabbed land, but now, they often made the grabbing unofficial.
quote:
Furthermore, take a look at regions like Africa and south america. Despite a multitude of similar strength countries, no wars... |
Ah, yes . . . no wars in Rwanda-Burundi lately, peaceful Ethiopian-Eritrean border for the last decade, Zaire enjoying peace and prosperity. Meanwhile, in South America, the peaceful soccer war, the conflict in Nicaragua, and numerous other peaceful events. Really, where did you get this idea? Conflicts are not stopped by UN decree. Of course, most of these examples I’ve used are not-interestate conflicts, but most of them are also nastier than many interstate conflicts. It should also be noted that those two areas had also been relatively quiet before WWII.
quote:
Well, the problem is that borders ARE clear cut. |
They’re clear in the sense that you can usually point to a very specific line on the map and say it’s a border. But morally speaking, I don’t attach great signifigance to those lines.
quote:
The ONLY acceptable ways for borders to change is either if a country is split in smaller parts, if two legitimate goverments decide to join or if a goverment ceedes territory as part of a deal (non-coerced). |
So if the deal has to be non-coerced, how can Versailles possibly count?
quote:
Obviously, neither WW2 nor Israels occupation of palestine is included under any of those conditions. |
And as I see it, nor is Germany’s ceding of land at Versailles. I’d hardly call that treaty “non-coerced.”
quote:
Well, the first part was intended as further illustration. Take that as you will.
As for the second, it was covered in the statement below. |
Okay, but is there any government anywhere which says that the current regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait are not the legitimate governments of their respective countries because they are not democratically elected?
quote:
What has that got to do with things? Try telling yourself 'ideology vs. practicality, which one was I asking about' a few times, and you might understand my original post. |
Here’s what it’s got to do with things:
I’m arguing that our support for dictatorial regimes is not a case of practicality winning out over ideology, but rather that we simply do not consider dictatorships illegitimate governments.
quote:
Well, considering that Kashmir joined with India by free will, and the world considers is part of India, I fail to see the point. |
I see that you are not aware that part of Kashmir (called Aksai Chin) is occupied by China and has been since 1959. Yet I have never seen any condemnation of this ilegal occupation.
quote:
Vilnius? Poland? Que? |
Vilnius was part of Poland from independence after WWI until Stalin annexed it to the USSR after WWII, so isn’t it occupied territory?
quote:
No, the allied occupation administration was an occupation administration. Kind of obvious, don't you think?
Germany did not have a legitimate goverment until the first free elections after the war. |
I don’t see why occupation is synonymous with illegitimate. Our occupation was completely justified by the preceding war and genocide, therefore, we and the other allied powers were the legitimate government.
quote:
umm, a democratic country being democartic assumes that the goverment rules on the mandate of the whole. if the goiverment grants cessation, it is legal. |
Did you read what I wrote? It was: “a democratic country may [/i]not[/i] allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole.” (emphasis added) That is, the issue is not when the democratic government grants cessation, but when it does not.
quote:
regarding the Basques and the Checenyans, I support their bid for freedom. [/QUO
Even though they are both fighting against democratic governments? Just want to be sure on this.
[QUOTE]
regarding the freemen and the south, it is a different situation. Members of an ethinc group (or a selfdeclared group, such as the freemen or 'southerners'), who move into a land already established, obviously has no right to demand their own country. |
Cyber, I’ve never seen anyone argue that the southerners of 1860 were different from the southerners of 1787 or 1776. They were the same people; no migration was involved. It’s just that in 1860 they decided they wanted out of what they had joined three quarters of a century before.
quote:
If you move somewhere, you assume the responsibilites of your new country. Likewise, no matter how many jews moved into palestine, they still don';t have the right to declare a jewish state... |
So how far back does a migration have to go before it becomes legitimate? For example, the Turks in Cyprus came there in Ottoman times. Also, wouldn’t this make Texan independence, and thus the resulting annexation, completely illegitimate?
quote:
ah, true to Natan style. Ignore the explanations, and keep insisting on your absurd represetnation of things.
well, just on the miniscule chance that still didn't actually understand what I previously wrote, let me highlight pertient parts:
The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.
Now, try to guess when non-vionet means are nor possible. could it be when time is of the essence, such as in a genocide situation? Not to mention if the number of people killed would be less than the military casualty due to military intervention? hopefully you feel chagrin that I had to explain the obvious for you, yet again... Or you feel elated that I was forced to waste time.. |
Once you start arguing for nuclear extermination as a means of preventing border adjustment, I feel the need to make absolutely sure we’re on the same page on what would be trivial topics in a discussion with someone who thinks civillian casualties should be avoided. Once you base your ideas on the rights of states rather than on saving human life, I have no further basis for assuming you will allow a state to take action against another state to save human lives rather than to save the state or its territorial integrity.
Furthermore, it seemed blatantly obvious to me that if genocide is taking place, taking more time to stop the genocide means (more or less by definition) that more people will be killed. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that peaceful means will not stop the genocide as quickly as violent ones. Hence, the need to request clarification when you say genocide should first be fought with non-violent means.
quote:
Regarding the nuclear means, I've been through it roughly eighty times by now.
A) An aggressor should be fought with whatever it takes to end the aggression.
B) Any act minimizing casualties among the victims are inherently justified.
C) Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM. |
Yes, those are all the things I find abhorent. You may have noticed substantial concern about civillian casualties in Serbia, Iraq, and other places, in which case you’ll see that there are other people who agree with me. If I criticize your opinion, repeating it again so that I can see again what I’m disagreeing with doesn’t really accomplish anything.
quote:
If this means nuclear annihilation, so be it. This is an extreme even, however, as an aggressor, even an insane one, would capitulate before his country is gone. |
Would the liberators even be obliged to make sure the aggressors know about the threat before carrying it out? And wouldn’t there be in many cases a threat of nuclear retaliation if the first strike is not utterly devestating?
quote:
so, I'm taking this as 'It is OK for jews to invade and occupy land, but not OK for non-jews to invade and occupy Israel'. Kind of figured. |
I don’t see how “depending on the circumstances” can be taken as a yes or a no, since it means both.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2002 15:26
|