Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Yes we do when it builds up to a certain point in the media.

[Pareve]

Saracen wrote: superskippy wrote: The US could never give us all the time we needed, it isnt simply a matter of veteoing a ceasefire there comes a point where we have to take the next step and international pressure would simply boil over.

As if the Israeli government cares about what the world has to say...

Considering the fact that a good chunk of Israel's money comes from abroad, Israel certainly cares what the world has to say.

[Saracen]

Pareve wrote: Saracen wrote: superskippy wrote: The US could never give us all the time we needed, it isnt simply a matter of veteoing a ceasefire there comes a point where we have to take the next step and international pressure would simply boil over.

As if the Israeli government cares about what the world has to say...

Considering the fact that a good chunk of Israel's money comes from abroad, Israel certainly cares what the world has to say.

I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

[Pareve]

Saracen wrote: Pareve wrote: Saracen wrote: superskippy wrote: The US could never give us all the time we needed, it isnt simply a matter of veteoing a ceasefire there comes a point where we have to take the next step and international pressure would simply boil over.

As if the Israeli government cares about what the world has to say...

Considering the fact that a good chunk of Israel's money comes from abroad, Israel certainly cares what the world has to say.

I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

Actually, President Clinton convinced Israel to give the antidote.
www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/05/israel/

Oh, and if you ask me, we really shouldn't have. I think assasinating these guys just gets rid of the whole problem of civilian casualties.

[Saracen]

Pareve wrote: American President? No. Jordanian King? Yes. And that's why the Israelis did nothing.

Except give in when the Mossad agents were taken hostage.

[Pareve]

Saracen wrote: Pareve wrote: American President? No. Jordanian King? Yes. And that's why the Israelis did nothing.

Except give in when the Mossad agents were taken hostage.

Fixed. Clinton did intervene, but his request did NOT fall on deaf ears.

[superskippy]

Quote: I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

It's too bad we caved to pressure and did give him the antidote, I'm sure if two of our agents werent on the line we would have let the bastard die. Not only that but we could have kept Yassin in prison until the day he died. Luckily we avenged the latter misfortune by blowing the bastard to pieces.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Quote: I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

It's too bad we caved to pressure and did give him the antidote, I'm sure if two of our agents werent on the line we would have let the bastard die. Not only that but we could have kept Yassin in prison until the day he died. Luckily we avenged the latter misfortune by blowing the bastard to pieces.

Is it because he was a Hamas member?

[Pareve]

Saracen wrote: superskippy wrote: Quote: I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

It's too bad we caved to pressure and did give him the antidote, I'm sure if two of our agents werent on the line we would have let the bastard die. Not only that but we could have kept Yassin in prison until the day he died. Luckily we avenged the latter misfortune by blowing the bastard to pieces.

Is it because he was a Hamas member?

Yes. He was a terrorist. Frankly, I think if the US and Israel just targeted and assasinated terrorists instead of bombing entire areas, it would be a lot more ethical.

[unclesamual]

Quote: Not only that but we could have kept Yassin in prison until the day he died. Luckily we avenged the latter misfortune by blowing the bastard to pieces.

Hamas today is the sole legitimate representatation of 1.3 million people in the Gaza Strip (they voted for Hamas, Israel doesn't represent them). The assassination of their spiritual/political leadership and defending it legitimizes the assassination of Israeli leadership who run the IDF including the Prime Minister and spiritual/political leaders of settlements and the like. Supporting such an action basically legitimizes the assassination of Kahane in New York who was his own founder of a terrorist organization (Jewish Defense League) and played a role in Israeli politics for quite a while. That is of course if you justify the assassination of leadership not involved directly as armed combatants in the conflict.

Quote: Yes. He was a terrorist. Frankly, I think if the US and Israel just targeted and assasinated terrorists instead of bombing entire areas, it would be a lot more ethical.

Yassin was a wheel-chair bound blind ak-47 carrying terrorist? Israeli political leadership has its examples of terrrorist leadership (Shamir as PM as recently as 1990s). Besides that, zionism is the conquest of land. We can debate whether conquest or terrorism is worse. The conquest of the Americas lead the native peoples to a demographic genocide even if it wasn't as blatant as gas chambers. Taking people's lands and their source of sustenance can kill them just as much as shooting Buffalos to get rid of the Plains Indians can kill them (especially in the desert). More hardship has occured through dreams of conquest than through terrorism. Given that, should zionist leadership be assassinated?

[Saracen]

Pareve wrote: Saracen wrote: superskippy wrote: Quote: I doubt it. A case in point was when Khaled Meshaal was almost assassinated. Appeals from the U.S. president to cure Meshaal fell on Netanyahu's deaf ears, because he refused to reveal the name of the poison so they may administer the antidote.

It's too bad we caved to pressure and did give him the antidote, I'm sure if two of our agents werent on the line we would have let the bastard die. Not only that but we could have kept Yassin in prison until the day he died. Luckily we avenged the latter misfortune by blowing the bastard to pieces.

Is it because he was a Hamas member?

Yes. He was a terrorist. Frankly, I think if the US and Israel just targeted and assasinated terrorists instead of bombing entire areas, it would be a lot more ethical.

I believe unclesamual explained it nicely.

[superskippy]

Quote: Is it because he was a Hamas member?

Yes and he was responsable for scores of terrorist attacks.

Quote: Hamas today is the sole legitimate representatation of 1.3 million people in the Gaza Strip (they voted for Hamas, Israel doesn't represent them).

I dont give a damn if now they wear suits and fatigues, they are still heading a terrorist organization and if we can kill them I expect our government to do as it has done in the past.

Quote: The assassination of their spiritual/political leadership and defending it legitimizes the assassination of Israeli leadership who run the IDF including the Prime Minister and spiritual/political leaders of settlements and the like.

Fine. Its not like they needed legitmization before, if they were able to hit higher up into the leadership they would have done so multiple times. If that is the trade off then so be it.

Quote: That is of course if you justify the assassination of leadership not involved directly as armed combatants in the conflict.

I do.

Quote: Yassin was a wheel-chair bound blind ak-47 carrying terrorist?

His age absolves him of his crimes? He was a key leader in a terrorist organization I dont care if he was blind deaf and wheelchair bound.

Quote: Besides that, zionism is the conquest of land.

No it isnt. Zionism means supporting a Jewish homeland and in the wake of the creation of Israel it means supporting the Jewish State IE Israel.

Quote: We can debate whether conquest or terrorism is worse. The conquest of the Americas lead the native peoples to a demographic genocide even if it wasn't as blatant as gas chambers. Taking people's lands and their source of sustenance can kill them just as much as shooting Buffalos to get rid of the Plains Indians can kill them (especially in the desert). More hardship has occured through dreams of conquest than through terrorism.

I think you need to open another thread.

[Pareve]

unclesamual wrote:
Hamas today is the sole legitimate representatation of 1.3 million people in the Gaza Strip (they voted for Hamas, Israel doesn't represent them).
So the Palestinians had a chance to vote for the horribly corrupt Fatah Party who have robbed the Palestinians blind since they took power, or Hamas, who are adittedly a bunch of terrorist religious fundamentalists but actually give back to the community by running all of the programs that the government isn't, like daycare, soup kitchens, etc. Hm.... Decisions, decisions... Hamas doesn't represent the Palestinian people. They were simply the lesser of two evils in the eyes of most Palestinians. I am aware that Israel does not represent the Palestinians and I advocate a two state solution but if you think that Hamas accurately represents the Palestinian people, you have to be kidding yourself. For starters, Palestinians have not been religious fundamentalists traditionally.

Quote: The assassination of their spiritual/political leadership and defending it legitimizes the assassination of Israeli leadership who run the IDF including the Prime Minister and spiritual/political leaders of settlements and the like. Supporting such an action basically legitimizes the assassination of Kahane in New York who was his own founder of a terrorist organization (Jewish Defense League) and played a role in Israeli politics for quite a while. That is of course if you justify the assassination of leadership not involved directly as armed combatants in the conflict.
I think assasinating terrorists is perfectly legitimate. It beats bombing entire neighborhoods into the ground. If that's more honorable somehow, I really don't care. If the IDF is going to do its job and kill people who are a threat, the least they can do is not get civilians involved.

[quote]Yassin was a wheel-chair bound blind ak-47 carrying terrorist?[/quyote]
Try wheel chair bound, blind founder of a dangerous terrorist organization. The Israelis didn't take him seriously enough initially for the same reasons you mentioned, and boy did it come back to bite them in the ass. When is the last time Osama bin Laden flew a plane into a building? Never. It is also likely that he is on dialysis. That doesn't mean that he isn't a terribly dangerous person.

Quote: Israeli political leadership has its examples of terrrorist leadership (Shamir as PM as recently as 1990s).
You say terrorist, I say legitimately elected public official trying to sustain order and defend his nation.

Quote: Besides that, zionism is the conquest of land.
You say conquest, I say legitimate political movement for the liberation of the Jewish people, who have suffered under the yoke of foreign nations for too long. It would probably help if you bothered arguing your point, since I don't agree with you. Simply making statements is rather counterproductive.

Quote: We can debate whether conquest or terrorism is worse.
You're right, we could. Terrorism is worse, hands down, because it's entire aim is to kill people. It has no positive redeeming aspects. The idea is to terrify and beat the populace into submission. It is generally undertaken by minorities who are unable to pursue their causes legitimately because they are unwilling to. As for conquest... That's pretty bad too, but the Israelis didn't conquer anyone (at least not until all of the Arab nations attacked at once) so it's a moot point.

Quote: The conquest of the Americas lead the native peoples to a demographic genocide even if it wasn't as blatant as gas chambers.
It also happened before native peoples were actually considered people by the White Europeans over two hundred years ago. If you're going to compare the Jews to Nazis, I really wish you wouldn't because it is the most stupid, reactionary thing a person can resort to in an argument.

Quote: Taking people's lands and their source of sustenance can kill them just as much as shooting Buffalos to get rid of the Plains Indians can kill them (especially in the desert).
The Israeli objective was not to wipe out the Palestinians. Furthermore, unlike in the United States much, much earlier, concepts of human rights had developed and the Israeli government wasn't paying for Arab scalps. Your analogy is worthless.

Quote: More hardship has occured through dreams of conquest than through terrorism.
I think the question of legitimate movements vs. illegitimate movements is certainly relevant here. I also think that lumping the Palestinian issue in with conquistadors is just stupid. This might make sense if the Jews burned the feet of the Arabs and forced them to mine for gold until they died of disease, while raping their adolescent daughters. However, you are just being hyperbolic. Hyperbole has no place in debate.

Quote: Given that, should zionist leadership be assassinated?
Obviously not, unless you intend on blaming thousands of years of hardship and violence on zionists. I would like to remind you that zionism didn't come around until the mid to late 1800's.

[unclesamual]

Quote: So the Palestinians had a chance to vote for the horribly corrupt Fatah Party who have robbed the Palestinians blind since they took power, or Hamas, who are adittedly a bunch of terrorist religious fundamentalists but actually give back to the community by running all of the programs that the government isn't, like daycare, soup kitchens, etc. Hm.... Decisions, decisions... Hamas doesn't represent the Palestinian people. They were simply the lesser of two evils in the eyes of most Palestinians. I am aware that Israel does not represent the Palestinians and I advocate a two state solution but if you think that Hamas accurately represents the Palestinian people, you have to be kidding yourself. For starters, Palestinians have not been religious fundamentalists traditionally.

My bad...free elections don't determine legitimate representation....uhh...ok.

people in the U.S. generally only get 2 chooses also.

That isn't to say that Palestinians don't have issues with many things about Hamas. On the other hand, Israel doesn't represent them. Pro-palestinian activists don't represent them. Fatah doesn't represent them. Pro-Palestinian activists like some on this board (like me) do not represent them. Denying Hamas some legitimacy in the regard as representation is an altogether denial of any sort of representation for Palestinians at all.

Quote: I think assasinating terrorists is perfectly legitimate. It beats bombing entire neighborhoods into the ground. If that's more honorable somehow, I really don't care. If the IDF is going to do its job and kill people who are a threat, the least they can do is not get civilians involved.

The way in which the assassination is done is important. As an example, there was an incident that I know of a bit before the Iraq war in which an Israeli aircraft assassinated a Hamas leader in a car and after a crowd of people gathered to see what was going on, they fired more missiles at the car/area hitting the crowd. These assassinations kill civilians also.

Quote: You say terrorist, I say legitimately elected public official trying to sustain order and defend his nation.

Shamir sided with Lehi/Stern gang. He was a leader of the group as it participated in the assassination of Brittians Minister of State for the Middle East, tried to kill the Brittish High Commisioner of Palestine, and assassinated the UN representative for the Middle East. The group killed Jews who were seen as traitors. 42 assassinations have been attributed to the group. It participated in the Deir Yassin Massacre that killed between 100-250 people. He was a terrorist and the Israeli Prime Minister from 1986 to 1992 along with an earlier term.

Quote: You say conquest, I say legitimate political movement for the liberation of the Jewish people, who have suffered under the yoke of foreign nations for too long. It would probably help if you bothered arguing your point, since I don't agree with you. Simply making statements is rather counterproductive.

It would be productive for me to argue my point and not simply make statements? This section of your post starts with "you say", "I say" statements. Before this, you state "You say terrorist, I say legitimately elected public official trying to sustain order and defend his nation.." and then leave it at that on the point.

Quote: You're right, we could. Terrorism is worse, hands down, because it's entire aim is to kill people. It has no positive redeeming aspects. The idea is to terrify and beat the populace into submission. It is generally undertaken by minorities who are unable to pursue their causes legitimately because they are unwilling to. As for conquest... That's pretty bad too, but the Israelis didn't conquer anyone (at least not until all of the Arab nations attacked at once) so it's a moot point.

David Ben Gurion said in 1937 that Arabs must be expelled. The policy of conquest was in place way before the 1948 war. The policy of a take-over to establish Jewish statehood was there and implemented effectively.

Terrorism has no redeeming aspects, and conquest does? Terrorism's aim is not just to kill people, but to do it for some political goal. That is its defination. It uses brutal means for a supposedly better end. When Arabs were massacred to make them flee the country, it was seen as a brutal means to create a better end of supposedly saving the Jewish people.

Conquest also was used in the case of Israel with the justification as the lesser of two evils.

And it is ridiculous to argue the point that it wasn't conquest. A big wave of people and a big war lead to a new state popping up populated by people who hadn't lived there, whose father hadn't lived there, whose grandfather hadn't lived there and in most cases were people like Ashkenazi Jews who were not descended at all from the historical peoples of the Jewish State in antiquity. How did it happen? Conquest....plain and simple. We can argue that it was for good purposes as much as we can argue that the terrorism conducted by the Jewish groups who participated in it was for good purposes or that Hamas' similar terrorism is to make some good outcome for the Palestinian people occur by making the cost of oppression too high for Israel to pay. Heck, Ariel Sharon said he wanted to keep the settlements in Gaza but the realities on the ground (resistance) dictated another course (withdrawl).

[superskippy]

Quote: The way in which the assassination is done is important. As an example, there was an incident that I know of a bit before the Iraq war in which an Israeli aircraft assassinated a Hamas leader in a car and after a crowd of people gathered to see what was going on, they fired more missiles at the car/area hitting the crowd. These assassinations kill civilians also.

Yes civilians often do die, Mossad cant always gun them down and get away safely. Though they still manage to do it quite a bit.

As for the rest of it I would be glad to debate just repost it in another thread.

[Saracen]

Pareve wrote: You say terrorist, I say legitimately elected public official trying to sustain order and defend his nation.

Testimony to one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...?

[superskippy]

You can call them freedom fighters if you like, we'll still kill them and they'll still deserve it.

[ALi*]

and we will still call you criminals and hunt you and target you...

[superskippy]

We have proven far better at the latter and we never forget. By the way why did Nasrallah ascend to power?

[ALi*]

rephrase plz...