Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPalestinian Villages May Soon Go Dark: Israeli Government To Remove Solar Panels And Wind Turbines
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,815476,00.htmlSeveral small Palestinian villages in the West Bank had been without electricity for decades -- before an Israeli foundation with funding from Europe recently installed solar panels and wind turbines. Now, though, Israel wants to remove the facilities because they are on land under its administration.
The best part is when the lights in the tents go on, one by one, says Elad Orian. Electricity here, in the hills south of Hebron, was long unreliable. Either it was not available or it was too expensive, produced for just a few hours each day by a noisy, diesel-guzzling generator. That changed when Elad Orian and Noam Dotan, two Israeli physicians who had tired of conflict, came along three years ago and installed solar panels and erected wind turbines. Since then, such facilities have been installed in 16 communities, providing 1,500 Palestinians with electricity.
The women here no longer have to make their butter by hand; they can refrigerate the sheep's cheese, which is their livelihood; and their children can do their homework at night. Now they can sit together and watch TV -- and connect to a world that seems far removed from their lives on the edge of the Judaean Desert. It is but a small revolution, achieved at little cost. But it is a good example of successful development aid.
The success, though, could soon be a thing of the past. Israel has threatened to tear them down with five municipalities in recent weeks having received "stop work" orders -- the first step on the road to demolition. The problem is that the facilities are in the so-called Area C, which covers 60 percent of the West Bank and is administered by Israel. Permission from the Israelis is a requirement before construction projects can move ahead -- and permits are almost never given to Palestinians.
snip
----------------------------------------------------------
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)but it doesnt seem to stop some here from giving it the good old college try.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)we saw it here first on this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342851
why oh why will European countries not recognize Israel's 'sovereignty'? 
roody
(10,849 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 19, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Unequal neighbors: Off the grid in Area C
Palestinians must apply to Israel to build on their land, and permits are granted to just 1 percent of this area that has an Israeli-approved plan, most of which is already built up.
During one month in 2011, Israeli forces tore down two attempts to connect to the PA electricity grid in Masafer Yatta.
Under the night sky, the unequal tapestry of the West Bank is laid bare.
Lights shine from the four Israeli government-sanctioned settlements and six unauthorized outposts built in Masafer Yatta since 1981, which are connected to Israeli supplied electricity. The fringes of the Palestinian Authority power grid stop short at the boundaries of Area C.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=459131
Illegal, underground: Palestine's electricity 'threat'
"Last year every type of demolition was doubled … showing this is a new policy, which has a political reason. It is not about being illegal or not getting legal permissions," Hemaid says.
A recently leaked EU report says the escalation of demolitions in Area C results in the "forced transfer of the native population," and is closing off the possibility of a two-state solution to the conflict.
Several village elders told Ma'an that the curbs on their development are part of a decades-old campaign to move local residents from this southern border zone, populated by an estimated 2,000 Israeli settlers.
"If we put down one stone, it is forbidden, because they want us to leave," says Muhammad Ahmed Nawaja, council head of Susiya village in Masafer Yatta.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=458280
Arrested development: Strangling Palestine's green power
COGAT, the Israeli military of defense department in charge of civilian life in the West Bank, says the solar panels are illegal without a permit, and the whole area "is missing any legal status," according to spokesman Guy Inbar.
"Their decision makes me very sad," Imeizil resident Nihad Mur, 25, told Ma’an in November.
"With solar light, we can see each other at night … We have access to the news, we don’t have to go out to fetch water … our clinic can use ultrasound machines."
She hopes her 3-year-old son Muhammad will grow up to be a doctor, but the village school needs the panels to power computers, and some of its classrooms are also under demolition order.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=459165
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
Response to stockholmer (Original post)
kickysnana This message was self-deleted by its author.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... because the Nazis weren't removing solar power ... they were deporting the Jews in the ghetto to extermination camps.
But, poTAYto-PoTAHto.
kickysnana
(3,908 posts)During the next year and a half, thousands of Polish Jews as well as some Romani people from smaller cities and the countryside were brought into the Ghetto, while diseases (especially typhus),[10] and starvation kept the inhabitants at about the same number. Average food rations in 1941 for Jews in Warsaw were limited to 186 calories, compared to 1,669 calories for gentile Poles and 2,614 calories for Germans.[citation needed]
Unemployment was a major problem in the ghetto. Illegal workshops were created to manufacture goods to be sold illegally on the outside and raw goods were smuggled in, often by children. Hundreds of four to five year old Jewish children went across en masse to the "Aryan side," sometimes several times a day, smuggling food into the ghettos, returning with goods that often weighed more than they did. Smuggling was often the only source of subsistence for Ghetto inhabitants, who would otherwise have died of starvation. Despite the grave hardships, life in the Warsaw Ghetto was rich with educational and cultural activities, conducted by its underground organizations. Hospitals, public soup kitchens, orphanages, refugee centers and recreation facilities were formed, as well as a school system. Some schools were illegal and operated under the guise of a soup kitchen. There were secret libraries, classes for the children and even a symphony orchestra. The life in the ghetto was chronicled by the Oyneg Shabbos group. In May 1942 a propaganda film was filmed in Warsaw ghetto- the A Film Unfinished which however was never shown.
Over 100,000 of the Ghetto's residents died due to rampant disease or starvation, as well as random killings, even before the Nazis began massive deportations of the inhabitants from the Ghetto's Umschlagplatz to the Treblinka extermination camp during the Grossaktion Warschau, part of the countrywide Operation Reinhard.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's the first part of the sentence you bolded.
What is your best estimate for the number of Palestinians who have died of starvation?
Response to oberliner (Reply #12)
kickysnana This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)key phrase.
None have died of starvation. You don't know the actual reasoning behind Israeli actions so you made one up (isn't it because we are in danger from bad people in the world. The usual reason), but you don't even know what the crime was either so you made that up to.
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #32)
kickysnana This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)That is seriously fucked up.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Well, I'd first like to point out that nothing you have said is remotely factually accurate. Palestine is not blockaded. Gaza is, but that's only a small part. Yet even in Gaza there are plenty of journalists and NGOs. There are tons of people who report on the situation constantly besides the Israelis. This is common knowledge. The fact that you are unaware of it demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about the conflict on your part.
You point me to a reliable source where utilities, hospitals and schools are running in Palestine.
This is so sad... you haven't bothered to read a single book or even magazine article about what is going on, have you? Palestine is probably the most well represented section of the entire middle east regarding journalism. There are TONS of journalists there from all over the world. One of the most important industries in the West Bank is TOURISM.
The Palestinians are the most well educated people in the Arab world. The UNRWA runs the schools, they report a literacy rate in the high 90's. The economy in the West Bank has been steadily improving since 2007 as reported by Ha'aretz, the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Palestinians themselves. Even in Gaza, where a blockade IS in effect, the International Red Cross has reported that there is no humanitarian crisis.
I have heard many people try and make a comparison between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto. The motive behind making such a comparison is clear... to try and equate modern Israelis with Nazis, and people will go through the most twisted logic to try and make the case. To anyone with even a rudimentary education about the conflict such a notion is ridiculous. And the motive behind it is nothing less than odious. But in your case you have not even bothered to get bad information from a biased website. You tried to equate PALESTINE with the Warsaw Ghetto. You think that it is all blockaded and that no schools or hospitals are running there. You assume that it is impossible for any journalists to report from there which would only be possible to someone who studiously avoided trying to google any news about Palestine. Bearing that in mind, I have a question for you. How do you have the nerve to draw Nazi comparisons wrt a subject that you display such a complete lack of knowledge about? Have you no shame?
I named my oldest son for David Ben Gurion
Do you think I'm retarded?
Response to kickysnana (Reply #15)
Shaktimaan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)a lot higher than people realize.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)its the ignorance combined with the need to make the israelis in to some kind of "imitation nazi" that is amazing....
so the Palestenians are now dying of diseases and starvation (i though the 'starvation' was just happening in the gaza, next to the 5 star hotels there?)
given that this is 2012 and the PA has a very good cellular network....got any picts?...i mean there must be thousands by now of Palestenian dying on the ground with disease, bloated stomachs
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... are in rush mode shooting for a Xmas 2012 release.
Coming soon!
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the Israelis sure seem keen to portray him as a Nazi, notwithstanding that there are 25 000 Iranian Jews in his hometown of Tehran, and he hasnt killed any of them in all his years of office. If he's trying to be Hitler, he's something of an underachiever.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)-though he has made his opinion very clear time and time again about israel......and they are developing nuclear weapons
granted nobody took hitler seriously...so we hardly expect for anybody to take iran serious either....except us, the ones who already paid for the
"peace in our time" naive mentality
_____
its just not a good idea to threaten us.........its really a dumb idea, we don't have the luxury of a mistake
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)so if his intention is to emulate Hitler, he doesnt have much time left.
its just not a good idea to threaten us.........its really a dumb idea, we don't have the luxury of a mistake
I don't think they do either. They don't have a friend in the world, except for Syria. And the problem with attempting to comply with Western demands is that they might invade you anyway (as they did in the case of Saddam).
They attempted to negotiate with the US in 2003 but were rebuffed, and the US has been unwilling to offer security guarantees even in the event that they discontinued their nuclear program.
Martin van Creveld said "if the Iranians are not developing nuclear weapons, then they are mad". I quite agree. If they don't develop some kind of credible deterrent, I think they are toast.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and his "friends" in high places what do they think?, what is their influence?...got any names, their positions?
i guess you missed the history, the whole" we're going to wipe you off the map", remove the zionist regime stuff came out of Iran. first came the excuses of:
missed translation, they're looking to divert internal intention, etc.....after the zillionth time, we got it, they don't like us and they would like to 'remove us".
funny how Syrian, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon never felt that israel was going to "wipe them off the map" despite its nuclear arsenal....all of a sudden Iran "feels threatened, a country of over 70 million 20x (?) the size of israel.
what exactly are they going to be "toast" about? if they don't develop nuclear weapons? The US is going to invade? is this another country israel just can't wait to occupy?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:53 AM - Edit history (1)
First you have the Americans and Brits uniting to topple the democratic regime of Iran in 1953. Then you have the Americans selling chemical weapons to Saddam hussein , which he cheerfully proceeded to use against Iranian civilians during the Iran Iraq war. Admittedly, Israel actually assisted Iran during that time, but the west was generally content to see Iran and Iraq kill as many of each other as possible.
Then of course you have Iran's peace overtures in 2003, their offer to assist against the taliban , which was all rebuffed by the bush administration, because Iran was number 2 on their hit list, and at that stage they were still thinking that number 1 (Iraq ) would be easy.
Have a listen to what martin van creveld has to say
pelsar
(12,283 posts)(video didn't play)
Iran only pretended to want to assist the US against the taliban given iranian history with the west (as your wrote)..no way is iran going to help the west do anything.(or as a way to get its hands on western weapons and technologies)
by pretending to help the US, they get the US off their backs while they develop the nuclear weapons that allah has made it clear that they need.
and this is the basic, clear point, that only fools cannot see:
Iran, as a theocratic state of islam rejects all western values (hanging homosexuals). They want no dependency on the west, as they have made clear, and having a nuclear arsenal is part of that independence, which is a foundation part of their foreign policy.
hence there is no way they are going to let their nuclear machinery be dependent upon the west that they want to protect themselves with, and given their rhetoric toward removing israel and their ability to send their own children in to mine fields.....clearly they have plans that have to be taken seriously and not dismissed by some "political interpretations"
the only difficult part of that obvious conclusion is accepting it and what it actually means.....the one very real option that they have said time and time again, you have to ignore because you don't like it
very "imperialistic attitude of you, to say the least.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Have a look at it.
Iran hates the Taliban and still do. They had every reason to assist the US against the old foe, much as they were keen to help against Saddam Hussein.
And bear in mind that given Iran's missiles, a nuclear strike aimed at Israel could end up hitting the West Bank, Jordan, Syria or Egypt, or missing them all and landing in the drink. Iran isnt all that bothered about having a missile that can definitively hit Israel, they just want one that can plausibly hit Israel, and thereby buy them credible deterrence.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)did you miss the fact that the iranians sent in their OWN children to clear mines during their war with iraq. They hang homosexuals, girls with "big mouths". Clearly western morality is not part of theirs and can't be used to judge them.
.....as far as their technological abilities, are you really really claiming that they don't have the ability to hit israel with one of their missiles?
thats why they shouldn't be taken at their word?....and what makes you so sure that they can't' and if they can't now, what about tomorrow?
yea...iran hates the taliban....only they hate israel and the US more. i assume your familiar with the saying the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" or politics makes for strange bedfellows....
______________
so what we have seen is your two claims, holding no water what so ever.and the video is about the US....so threatening to "remove Israel" is clearly Irans own philosophy and their own initiative....
why shouldn't israel believe them?
_____
so how about another reason why we shouldn't take Irans threats seriously...only this time, something serious, other than wishful thinking and disrespect.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)you are saying that because Iran used human wave attacks against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, then it can be taken for granted that they would launch a nuclear missile at Israel?
Russia used human wave attacks against the Germans. Does this mean that they would also launch a nuclear missile at Israel?
Why, for example, would Iran launch a nuclear weapon at Israel, but Pakistan would not?
Read my post again. Their missiles are capable of hitting Israel, or hitting someone else entirely. Iran's nuclear program has the same objective as North Korea's. Its not meant to be capable of annihilating its enemies, its meant to be capable enough to deter people from invading.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)did the generals tell you this? who told you? (i always though that kind of stuff was top top secret)
so why does irans president talk about annihilating israel (and a few nuclear missiles will do the trick) if they don't "mean it", so according to you they're "just kidding"
and you know this, and there is no debate within the iranian govt on it because....
____
here i got you a recent quote (is he just joking?....cause i don't get the joke, maybe its a "translation problem?"
Iran will help anyone willing to "cut out the cancer" of Israel, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9059179/Iran-We-will-help-cut-out-the-cancer-of-Israel.html
___
please save some bandwidth of some long winded explanation of what he "really means" (as if you know), you don't know, neither do I, but the threat is very very very clear. Israel is a cancer, has to go and they will take an active role-thats a pretty damn clear threat to the whole country
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The fact that he has refrained from genocide against Iran's Jews somehow means that all of his other actions and rhetoric are to be ignored? When you'r low bar is Hitler is it really a surprise when your subject fair to reach it? No one is calling him Hitler but you anyway. We are calling him a dangerous, anti-semitic zealot, sure. But you're right, he's not Hitler. Still, I think the bar should be set higher for those who want to obtain nuclear weapons than Hitler.
I mean, is failing at being Hitler such an accomplishment for him that you thought it pertinent to post?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)particularly by pro-Israel types. I can go and find a few examples if you really want me to.
A perfectly reasonable sentiment, and I agree. That is the reason I prefer you to most of your ideological fellow-travellers, at least you are still able to articulate a reasonable position.
However, the position being advocated by people like Pelsar (although admittedly not very well worded) is that Iran intends to obtain a nuclear weapon, which they will then gleefully lob at Israel. Then they will all happily die in the consequent fireball when Israel fires probably every last one of its 200 nuclear weapons at Iran.
The entire country and 5000 years of Persian history will come to an end, but Iran's leadership will nevertheless be pleased with having at least done some damage to those perfidious Jews, presuming of course that their missiles manage to fly straight.
However, the problem with this thesis is that if Ahmadinejad is willing to sacrifice his entire country in order to harm Jews in Israel, why hasnt he bothered to do anything to the 25 000 Jews that live just down the street?
And in any event, if there are Jews living in Iran, but no Jews living in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc etc, doesnt that mean that Iran is probably actually less anti-semitic than many of those other countries?
There was controversy a few years back regarding a cartoon of Ariel Sharon depicting him as Hitler. Pro-Israel types argued that Sharon could not be Hitler, because after all he had not embarked on genocide against the Arabs living in Israel. Fine and well, but surely the same argument could be made in favour of Ahmadinejad. After all, Sharon killed plenty of Arabs in his time, but Ahmadinejad has not demonstrably killed any Jews.
In any event, he will be gone in 2013 and replaced with someone else, and I suspect that this has some relevance in prompting Israel to consider attacking Iran now. After all, Ahmadinejad's remarks are the closest thing that Israel has to a casus belli that would justify attacking Iran. Without him, they havent got much to go on at all.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)If Ahmadi Nejad truly believes that his Madhi will only come when Iran defeats the great and little satans, and this un-welling (de-welling?) event is supposed to happen during his tenure (as backed as well by the Ayatollah), then it wouldn't make a tinker's damn to him if a Jew was standing next to him in the street. That isn't his stated goal, his purpose or his problem.
I get what you are saying, but I also listen to what AN has been saying for the last 7 years and I truly believe that he believes the shit that comes out of his own mouth about this.
Listen to him. It isn't about individual/collective Jews, it is about the land.
You are free to discount it as religious rantings, but a strong belief system can make people a *little* insane.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)"Israel should be wiped off the map" is much like Nikita Khruschev shouting "We will bury you" at the US in 1959. Its red meat for the people back home, as well as a display of bravado for your opponents.
In both cases, it was a miscalculation. In the 1967 Cuban Missile Crisis, US hawks endlessly referred to Khruschev's "bury you" remark as proof that the Soviet Union intended to launch nukes at the US as soon as it was able.
Of course, in both cases, those same hawks ignored the backpedalling and clarifications that followed. Khruschev said that he meant that the US would be buried by its own working class, not by nukes from the Soviet Union, and Ahmadinejad said that he wanted Israel to be replaced with a non-Zionist state of Jews and Arabs equally, but was not talking about wiping Israel off the map militarily.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Have you missed the last few AN "showings" at the UN?
LOL. Yeah - its 1959 Russia ALL over again.
So who was Niki's comparative mahdi in the well coming to save humanity, needing the leadin AN proposes? Khruschev was an atheist.
Do not undermine shia theological madness as that mentality is part and parcel of the equation here. You may not like it as much as I wish it didn't exist, but it is reality and those in charge trumpet it at every opportunity.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)
I suppose what you're arguing is that Iran's leaders are fervent believers in Islam, and therefore nuclear deterrence will not work on them as they will not fear death because they will have their place in the paradise that is to come.
Shia Islam in fact teaches that great destruction will come to Syria and Iraq (but Israel is not mentioned) when the Mahdi arrives. But in any event there will be a lot of war involved.
Now, the obvious rejoinder is this: the United States is a nuclear power. And every one of its leaders fervently believes in a religion called Christianity that, with minor variations, teaches the same as the above. Many if not most US Christians believe that they will reach paradise when the rapture arrives, and for the most part they think that some kind of climactic middle eastern war will be the harbinger to bring this all about.
My point being - if nuclear deterrence works for the US, it ought to work for Iran as well.
As far as holocaust denial goes, its worth noting that officials close to the supreme leadership in Iran have publicly disavowed ahmadinejad's views on the holocaust. Its also worth noting that denial of the holocaust doesn't mean that Iran intends to attack Israel. After all, Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide, but that doesn't mean that they intend to attack Armenia.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)in reference to Syria and Iraq. That is extremely intriguing given what has been going on over there the last 11 or so months. Thanks for adding that (or correcting me, which ever way you look at it).
I agree with the mentality of life after death that is shared - but I think the difference is that one school of thought is proactive about it where the other is reactive. Christianity (that I am aware) does not have a school of thought on proactive martyrdom where Islam does embrace that concept. That is what makes people like me nervous about Iran and her intentions given the statements by the President over the years.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)it is a bit like saying I can predict what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow by reading the Talmud.
It is also worth noting that the US has brought the world closest to the brink of nuclear war (think back to when they were dropping depth charges on Soviet submarines during the Cuban missile crisis). Had it not been for a junior Soviet officer named Arkhipov, it is quite likely that neither of us would be sitting here right now.
By comparison, Pakistan (whose leaders are every bit as Islamic as Iran's) has been a model of nuclear restraint.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 04:11 AM - Edit history (1)
i guess it makes it easier to "be right" if you ignore what you don't like:
After all, Ahmadinejad's remarks are the closest thing that Israel has to a casus belli
why ignore this guy?.....
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Israel is not "talking about destroying iran as you seem to imply whereas Iran is talking about removing the israeli cancer: and infact are quite active in helping hamas and hizballa attack israel...(so its not just "words and rhetoric, their actions are clear)
perhaps comment on that
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)And you forget that Israel was sponsoring militias in Lebanon long before Iran thought to do the same. In fact, Hezbollah did not even exist prior to Israel invading and occupying Lebanon, or had you forgotten?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)when? how? through militias?...which ones?
and that is why Iran is justified in arming and training Hizaballa to attack israel as per their public announcements?
_____
wow...you keep comparing oranges and apples:
israel has never attacked iran either directly or indirectly
Iran has supplied arms and training of groups that have and do attack israel
iran has publicly stated that israel must be removed
Israel has stated that Irans must not go nuclear.-nothing about the destroying the country
and as far as i understand you believe the iranian actions and threats are equal or lesser than israelis?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)so israel is "recruiting" islamic fanatics (which means they probably hate jews and israel) to fight other fanatic islamics?
does one set of fanatic islamists really need jews to recruit them to fight another set? (helping hamas didn't go so well...i would think they might have learned.-maybe not)
and these people are trying to kill any iranian citizen?
i think that is the jist of the difference
israel is threatening Irans nuclear facilities
Iran is threatening the whole state of israel?
Iran is threatening and actively arming a group that threatens and attacks the population of israel, Irans population is not under such a threat
and to you both positions are the same?....wow, thats some trick
pelsar
(12,283 posts)_____
which frankly means we have no idea who is funding them or helping them...is it the CIA, who then diverts to Israel?
___
so I would say we have no real info on that aspect that can be counted on:
which leaves us left with iran threatening to destroy all of israel and israel threatening to destroy just the nuclear plants.
same thing?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)What evidence have you for saying that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel? Iran has never before attacked another state.
The UK and the CIA arranged to topple a quite democratic Iranian government in the 1950s.
Israel of course has nuclear weapons, has attacked several of its neighbours and has publically threatened to attack Iran at every opportunity.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)
this is not about nuances in language of what is the precise meaning of the word "is" is.
this is not about "is the translation 100% correct and making word for word comparisons of farsi to hebrew to english...
thats all real "cutsy" stuff for people who live far far away and don't have the risk on their own heads....its a fun game to play..."did he really really mean it, was it for "local consumption?" was to to distract the citizens...you can spends months defining and redefining what they might have meant....
______
irans govt has said it clear enough that israel has to go.....and they are active in attacking israel via hizballa and hamas (or do you have a problem with that as well?).
am i suppose to find the quotes from various iranian officials?, there have been more than enough...and the population of israel still remembers how no one believed hitler either when he made his pronouncements....or Nassar for that matter....
there is no room here for nuances and us israelis don't realy have to play his game- they say the state of israel has to go, and soon will be able to make good upon that threat... thats makes it real, and thats enough to aim our weapons at iran.
its just not a game we like to play... and we take threats and pseudo threats very seriously, since we can't tell the difference and neither can you...
kayecy
(1,417 posts)I asked you what evidence you have because I assumed anyone supporting an Israeli/US attack on Iran would have lots of evidence. So far you have offered nothing....Suppose you give a few independent references (Not Israeli, US or Iranian please!) supporting your belief?
I know International Law means little to the GOI but from what I have read, an Israeli attack on Iran under the present circumstances would break International Law.
...and they are active in attacking israel via hizballa and hamas (or do you have a problem with that as well?).
Israel attacked lebanon and caused massive damage to the Shiites living there......Is it surprising that a Shiite country would support its bretheren in Lebanon?
....thats close enough to a real threat, and thats enough to aim our weapons at iran.
I have no objection to Israel 'aiming its weapons at Iran'.....So long as it has no intention of using them without being absolutely sure Iran is about to launch an attack on Israel......much more sure than Israel & the US were about Iraq's supposed WMD capability.
Do you think Iran is about to launch an attack on Israel?
How many Iranian civilians is Israel prepared to kill in order to delay the Iranian nuclear program? 1,000?...100,000?
You will dodge this question because in truth Israel is prepared to kill as many as happen to get in the way of its bombs so long as Iran's nuclear program is delayed.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
but lets start off with you.....
how do you know that we are prepared to kill as as many.... Personally i have no idea what the govt of israel is planning on doing, I haven't been privy to the hundreds of different committees and plans that have been developed like you obviously have...so what is the latest plan?
or did you just make up this stuff?
You will dodge this question because in truth Israel is prepared to kill as many as happen to get in the way of its bombs so long as Iran's nuclear program is delayed.
__________
you ask of evidence?...i don't have any, thats for sure, the iranians wouldn't let me in to their targeting computers as i asked, all i can do is make guesses based on what they say and what they do. Clearly you know more than me, and have the evidence, so i guess you did get permission to see their targeting computers and their missile capabilities, otherwise you wouldn't be so sure......right?
__________________
so at least you do admit that Iran is helping hizballa in their past attacks on israeli cities (isn't that suppose to be a war crime or something) and you did forget about them helping hamas who are also shooting rocks randomly at israelis (also a war crime).
so at least we have established that iran is helping two groups in their war crimes against israel, and it appears that you approve.
______________
you live in a nice fantasy world...nothing is "sure" in international politics, there are only guesses and psudo intelligent guesses and mistakes.
the only thing we do know for sure, is that Iran is helping groups attack Israel and they have stated publicly they want to remove israel
they shouldn't do that, if they didn't make those public statements again and again they're would nt be a problem and people like you would ignore them and let them hang their homosexuals in peace without disturbance....
right?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)how do you know that we are prepared to kill as as many.... Personally i have no idea what the govt of israel is planning on doing,
The GOI have never indicated that the number of likely civilian deaths has been a factor in their decision to go to war. Not in 57, 67, 73 or the various Lebanese wars. As a serving IDF officer, you must have taken part in discussions cocerning the morality of war. Has the question of whether Israel should consider the cost in lives in any decision to go to war ever come up?
Now how about answering the question...In your personal opinion, how many Iranian deaths are acceptable in any attempt by Israel to delay Iran's nuclear development?......If you insist on dodging this question, at least say whether you consider that getting rid of Sadam was worth the 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths which was the result.
...........................................................
you ask of evidence?...i don't have any, thats for sure,
So you admit you are ignorant of the facts.....You are so indifferent to the morality of a major decisions about to be taken by your democratically elected government that you wash your hands of the matter and are happy to remain ignorant!.......A citizen living under a dictatorship could legitimately claim no responsibility for his government's actions......A citizen of a democracy has no such excuse!
.............................................
so at least you do admit that Iran is helping hizballa in their past attacks on israeli cities
And the US was helping Israel in their past attacks against Lebanon.....What point are you trying to make?
..............................................
.....and they have stated publicly they want to remove israel
I wonder why you cannot dig up a single independent reference to this claim?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)
any decision about going to war is about saving the lives of ones own country...not the cost of how many your going to kill. There is no kill number that decides whether or not a war is finished, its finished when the objectives are met or the cost to one of the participants becomes to high.
we got to war when the attacks have reached a point where we have to stop them to protect our citizens, be it lebanon or gaza. if there were no attacks, we would not go to war, the objective is to stop the attacks, it may cost them 10 or 5,000 a lot depends upon where they hide their missiles and where they attack us from. Attack from an apt building and the building will get blown up, whether there is 1 person or 20 in that building is something that we cannot know.
the question of how many we kill, to keep us safe is not up to us....ask jordan why we don't attack them, ask egypt why over 40 years of no attacks?....if they don't attack us, the don't get killed.
____
you ask me how many iranian deaths is it worth to remove the threat of iran nuclear missiles?... If for what ever reason the iranian nuclear missiles are deemed an imminent threat and have to be blown up to save israel, then the the number of iranians that will "have to die" are is the number that are next to/in those nuclear bases, be it 10 or 10,000.
this is not difficult: my life, my family, my countries existence is worth more than those that threaten us. The number of those that may die is up to those govts that attack and threaten us. Its up to them to remove their citizens from the war zone, not us.
not having knowledge is not the same as not accepting the responsibility. My elected govt has been elected by us to make decisions with information that i do not have. Am i ignorant of many of the facts? of course. When i'm in service and passing on info to what i see, the general population is not privy to that info, and that info may produce a reaction by the govt. All citizens are not as informed as the relevant govt agencies. To believe otherwise is to believe in fairy tales.....but i guess you do
____
the point about hizballa and hamas is that they attack our cities indiscriminately which i understand is a war crime. iran, the country your defending aids in this practice..hence they are making good on their promise to actively support those that want to destroy israel, thats very clear to us.
_____
if your looking for iranian remarks about destroying israel, just try google/wikipedia, its full of them, clearly you have some kind of word game in mind, about "what they really mean"...well i really don't know what the iranian generals are saying when they set up their missiles and who's winking at who, but enough remarks have been said in enough variations about removing israel to make some of the their intentions clear enough.
for all i know they're just playing you and others like u to buy some time to finalize their missiles before the attack.....
we've already seen how the left gets played...."peace in our time" i believe was the phrase
kayecy
(1,417 posts)So you think that Israel has no responsibility in the matter? You think Israel’s disproportionate military responses have not been up to Israel?..........Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982 because Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel’s ambassador......One result of this disproportionate response was the creation of Hezbollah and its determination to seek revenge against Israel........Israel invaded the Lebanon in 2006 because a handful of Israeli soldiers had been killed in a border incident........Israel failed to de-fang Hezbollah in that war and it is now planning to attack Iran claiming Iran’s support of Hezbollah makes it an existential threat to Israel.....Do you not think that Israel again might simply be creating a bigger threat to itself?........Your talk of 10,000 being killed, yet under the worst scenario millions might die as a result of Israel setting light to the Middle East powder keg. Do you consider that to be impossible or you just don’t care?
.........................................................................
you ask me how many iranian deaths is it worth to remove the threat of iran nuclear missiles?... If for what ever reason the iranian nuclear missiles are deemed an imminent threat and have to be blown up to save israel, then the the number of iranians that will "have to die" are is the number that are next to/in those nuclear bases, be it 10 or 10,000.
But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they? Even assuming Israeli intelligence estimates there is no immediate threat.....Israel is determined to attack Iran now because the chances of it even achieving a two year delay in Iran’s nuclear development are reducing......Has such an excuse for war ever been put forward before?
.......................................................................
not having knowledge is not the same as not accepting the responsibility.
So you do accept that you have some responsibility for your government’s actions – good! Now use your head and work out the morality of an Israeli attack. You don’t have the intelligence available to the GOI but your opinion of the possible results of an attack is as valid as that of your government.
...............................................................................
the point about hizballa and hamas is that they attack our cities indiscriminately which i understand is a war crime.
So is using cluster munitions in populated areas....Kids are still being maimed in the Lebanon as a result of Israeli cluster weapons.
..................................................................................
if your looking for iranian remarks about destroying israel, just try google/wikipedia, its full of them
I have looked and failed to find any independent claim that Iran has threatened to attack or destroy Israel......Why cannot you produce even one reference yourself which justifies your position?.....Blindly believing what you read in the Israeli/US right-wing press is no basis for supporting a decision to go to war.
.................................................................................
You still haven’t answered my question....... In your opinion, were the 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths that resulted from the Iraq war justified by the faulty western intelligence claim that Sadam had WMD?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 3, 2012, 05:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Hizballa and Hamas with Iranaian direct support attack israeli cities...i understand you support their attacks, which are defined as war crimes.
do you or don't you? (you seem to place the blame on their actions on israel....is that what your doing?)
_______________
as far as statements from Iran about israel, as i understand the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network has several of them. The UN has commented on his statements as well, as have the German Foreign Minister, Agence France Presse. If you consider then all 'right wingers" and therefore unreliable, your making your life really easy.
___
if your going to write please, please, don't attempt to insult my knowledge or intelligence with half facts. I realize it makes it easier for yourself to get to the conclusions you want, but then i have to correct you and i expect you to either revise or recant:
Israel did not attack Lebanon in 82 because of the assassination attempt, nor did israel attack lebanon because of the abduction in 2006...Israel attacked both times because of the history of continual attacks from Lebanon over a long period, the attempted assassination and the abuductions were simply the final trigger
and we better clear up this thing about disproportionate..you clearly don't understand it: its the standard, thats how wars are won. What ever they use to attack, we return with bigger and more..the concept is not a western shoot out, but to kill them quickly without getting our guys hurt. Thats how i like it and everybody i know prefers it that way and every war is won that way.
_____
now lets test your morality, as you seem to think you are morally superior:
your in a store, with your two kids (5yr old and 7yr old). The store is crowded and in walks two gunman. they lines up everybody (10 people) and each gunman takes turn shooting them one by one. One of them then gets to your kids, points the gun and you, by chance are hidden and have a larger gun.
I would say its reasonable to say you then point your gun and try to shoot the guy and maybe the other one as well without thinking about the wounded civilians that you might hit. correct?
now, lets make it more interesting, instead of 2 gunman there are 8 and when they get to your kids, who are now next to the 8 gunman on one side, were as the wounded are also next to the gunman on the other side, and some of the gunman are pointing the guns at your kids.....
are you going to put your automatic weapon on automatic, check the magazine to make sure its in securely and start spraying the gunman? (knowing full well that automatic gunfire is inaccurate)
or
are you going to think: my two kids lives are not worth the risk of me killing the wrong people, not all of the gunman shot those people today? and i might hit them as well as the wounded.
and then let the gunman kill your own kids because that is the "moral thing to do"
Your decision has to be made clearly within a second and you don't have all the information you would like to have....
just answer what you would do in both scenarios-be as clear as possible and then i shall return to your other questions:
we need to discover how you define your own morality......
kayecy
(1,417 posts)No, I do not.
Israel did not attack Lebanon in 82 because of the assassination attempt, nor did israel attack lebanon because of the abduction in 2006...Israel attacked both times because of the history of continual attacks from Lebanon over a long period, the attempted assassination and the abuductions were simply the final trigger
Thank you for your correction...Are you now going to write and correct Wikipedia?
1. Between July 1981 and June 1982, the Lebanese-Israeli border "enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968.
2. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig's fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.
3. According to Avi Shlaim, the real driving force behind the Israeli invasion to Lebanon was the defense minister Ariel Sharon. One of his aims was the destruction of PLO military infrastructure in Lebanon and undermining it as a political organization, in order to facilitate the absorption of the West Bank by Israel.
4. In 1982, an international commission concluded that "the government of Israel has committed acts of aggression contrary to international law", that the government of Israel had no valid reasons under international law for its invasion of Lebanon.
Whilst it is true that there were attacks on Israel by the PLO before 1982, just as there were over-flights and attacks on the PLO by the IDF, however, as the above makes clear, the Likud government had strategic reasons for attacking Lebanon. Your statement that it was because of the continual attacks from Lebanon is patently untrue.
..................................................................................
I would say its reasonable to say you then point your gun and try to shoot the guy and maybe the other one as well without thinking about the wounded civilians that you might hit. correct?
You might do that......I would try to shoot the guy whilst bearing in mind the danger to the civilians.
are you going to put your automatic weapon on automatic, check the magazine to make sure its in and start spraying the gunman? or are you going to think: are my two kids worth the risk of me killing the wrong people? not all of the gunman shot those people today? and i might hit them as well?
Probably your first option but making every endeavour to kill the right people......However, what has all this hypothetical nonsense got to do with Israel-Iran?......Have Iranian gunmen walked into Israel and started shooting civilians one by one?......Had your hypothetical gunmen lost family members because of Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah?
No doubt you will explain your analogy in due course, but at least you cannot say that I have dodged your questions.
You, on the other hand, have still not answered my question:
In your opinion, were the 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths that resulted from the Iraq war justified by the faulty western intelligence claim that Sadam had WMD?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Probably your first option
ok so we have established you are willing to wound/kill others that have not hurt your kids, and that you don't even have any proof that they mean to kill your kids, yet you are willing to kill people just because you believe they might and definitely kill/wound others (automatic fire) who are also victims because of this same belief.
you have made it clear that with 8 gunmen you will open fire, how about if there are 20? 50? at what number will you decide that though you believe they will kill your kids, you do not want to kill so many others to protect them? and its better if your kids are killed?
__________
your question
In your opinion, were the 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths that resulted from the Iraq war justified by the faulty western intelligence claim that Sadam had WMD
looking back obviously not, intelligence is just a guessing game. Should I have believed the intelligence and the attack? I actually never believed the intelligence i had the impression that there were other reasons, like protecting saudi arabia, the oil, make a western democracy, change the status etc....and did those reasons justify it?....is it justifiable to kill innocents on such a scale for a change in an political entity?. I believe it was a turning point, proof if you will, that the single mindedness required of nations to repeat how germany and japan were revamped, is no longer viable....so no such wars (as in afganistan) can be justified today.
once they started i was hoping for the best, and was for it, but like "voting in gaza" my view of reality was that it would be a failure with unknown consequences.
now your turn...
How about Hitler, WWII, should have the allies attacked germany earlier before hitler got the chance to be responsible for the death of 20million? 20 million is a lot more than 100,000. Or japan? should japan have been attacked much earlier and saved many?
____
and lebanon ...i was watching the katushas fall....(do better research)
1981, when 2,885 PLO katyushas landed on the city, killing two people and injuring 74.)
perhaps for some like the kassams, katyushas are not consider an attack, but we do.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Answers for your convoluted hypothesis:
you have made it clear that with 8 gunmen you will open fire, how about if there are 20? 50? at what number will you decide that though you believe they will kill your kids, you do not want to kill so many others to protect them? and its better if your kids are killed?
You previously said that in your hypothesis “..... they lines up everybody (10 people) and each gunman takes turn shooting them one by one.” With 50 gunmen there is nothing I could do even with an automatic weapon.....The question then becomes one of deciding which is the least hazardous course....What if anything should I do to reduce the further killing of civilians?.
I still don’t see what you getting at.
...........................................................................................
My question:
In your opinion, were the 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths that resulted from the Iraq war justified by the faulty western intelligence claim that Sadam had WMD
Your reply:
looking back obviously not
So as a result of a decision to go to war by western governments 100,000 people lost their lives and you now think the decision to go to war was not justified......Your regrets are not much help to the 100,000 dead Iraqis are they?
The proposed Israeli attack on Iran is at a similar stage with possibly similar faulty intelligence.....Haven’t you learnt anything?....You are supporting an attack on a state which, unlike Iraq, has never attacked any of its neighbours....You are prepared to see any number of Iranians killed simply because your government thinks Iran may one day attack Israel.
Add to this the fact that no Israeli attack is likely to delay Iranian nuclear development for more than two years and you must be either indifferent to a masive Iranian death toll or you are a war monger.
How about Hitler, WWII, should have the allies attacked germany earlier before hitler got the chance to be responsible for the death of 20million? 20 million is a lot more than 100,000. Or japan? should japan have been attacked much earlier and saved many?
No ......Unless Western leaders had cast iron proof that Hitler & Tojo were definitely going to attack them.....In any case, neither Britain nor France were ever in a position to force Hitler to abandon his plans.
....................................................................................
...and lebanon ...i was watching the katushas fall....(do better research)
1981, when 2,885 PLO katyushas landed on the city, killing two people and injuring 74.)
I said that there were PLO rocket attacks on Israel...Is it surprising?......Israel was occupying part of Lebanon, over-flying Lebanon and bombing PLO positions.
Are you claiming that the International Commission's conclusions on the 1982 war are irrelevant?
.........................................................................................
You have said that 100,000 Iraqi deaths were not justified. My question for you, therefore is as follows:
The PLO rockets by your own admission caused few deaths....The 1982 war resulted in deaths of 17,000 Lebanese .......Were those 17,000 deaths justified by the deaths of two Israelis?........Were they justified by Sharon’s failed attempt to achieve regime change in Lebanon?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)lets take a break on your questions to me (we'll get back to them) and explore how easily your willing to kill people that have no intention of killing your children....
what i am getting at in the scenario is to show just how easily when it comes to protecting your own your willing to kill others.
_________
those gunman, the ones who killed others? and you, who put the weapon on automatic that i mentioned makes if very inaccurate. Well once you start shooting, the innocents on the same side as the gunman will also get shot, plus those gunman, it turns out love children and would never hurt yours, yet here you trying to mow them down because you believe either in capital punishment without trial or that you have the mistaken belief they will hurt your kids and you will kill to protect them.
_______________
so what we see, is that are willing to kill people by a mistaken belief and also kill innocents as well.. 8 gunman and you open fire, what about 50? and if you had the means to kill all 50 in your mistaken belief to save your kids, will you do that too?
the questions now is not whether or not your moral principles are any different from mine, they are not, now its just a question of numbers:
so your turn: how many people will you kill to protect your own children....
kayecy
(1,417 posts)lets take a break on your questions to me (we'll get back to them)
What a cheek!...I have answered all your questions ( six was it?) and you now want to defer part 2 of the only question I have asked you.
....................................................
those gunman, the ones who killed others? and you, who put the weapon on automatic that i mentioned makes if very inaccurate
AH...not being a military man I was not aware of that.
............................................................
Well once you start shooting, the innocents on the same side as the gunman will also get shot, plus those gunman
If what you say is true then I would not have pulled the trigger...To my mind it would be immoral to shoot an innocent civilian even to save the life of my child.
.............................................................
, plus those gunman, it turns out love children and would never hurt yours
I thought your hypothetical gunmen were lining up civilians and shooting them one by one...Doesn’t sound as though they love children!
................................................................
yet here you trying to mow them down
No, no...Now you have told me automatc fire is inaccurate I would not fire at all if there was a risk of killing civilians.
...................................................................
so what we see, is that are willing to kill people by a mistaken belief
I don’t understand you...I are asking me if I would fire at gunmen who are killing civilians one by one...Where is the mistaken belief in that?
......................................................................
and also kill innocents as well..
As I said above, it would be immoral and unacceptable for me to kill innocents.
...........................................................................
.. 8 gunman and you open fire, what about 50? and if you had the means to kill all 50 in your mistaken belief to save your kids, will you do that too?
No, as I said above, if by automatic fire you mean inaccurate fire then it would be immoral to open fire if there was a real risk of my killing civilians.
...........................................................................
so your turn: how many people will you kill to protect your own children....
Non, the question does not apply......See above......I would not be able to live with myself if I had killed an innocent to save my kids or my wife or myself.
...........................................................................
I conclude from your hypothesis that our morals are completely different.....You seem to have no compunction about killing civilians if it would save the lives of your family...What sort of a moral code is that?
Having cleared that up, can you see your way to answering my (non-hypothetical) question
Now?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2012, 02:57 AM - Edit history (2)
will you a attempt to kill the gunman who who have already lined up and killed some innocents people who you believe will then kill your children?
notice the word attempt, knowing you might miss and wound/kill some others or maybe not, since the gunman will not stand there and let you shoot them, the will probably move and shoot back and they may or may not kill others not involved...
but you still believe they will kill your children..... note the word believe
and yes you don't know that the gunman don't kill children, imperfect knowledge is very much part of the any war
will you still attempt to "save them" in this imperfect scenario? (note you may or may not kill an innocent....its a risk, will you take it?
or will you shoot, knowing that if you kill them you advocating by your actions capital punishment (without trial) and in fact you would have killed by mistake?
___
and assuming your answer is that under no circumstances would you shoot if innocents might get hurt, does this mean you would be against the US entering WWII given the in exact nature of war and the thousands of innocents that the US forces did infact kill? (not to mention that German did not even attack the US)
i'll get to yours...i'm still clarifying your theoretical morals....
kayecy
(1,417 posts)will you a attempt to kill the gunman who who have already lined up and killed some innocents people who you believe will then kill your children? notice the word attempt, knowing you might miss and wound/kill some others or maybe not, since the gunman will not stand there and let you shoot them, the will probably move and shoot back and they may or may not kill others not involved... but you still believe they will kill your children..... note the word believe
Theoretically, it would depend on the chance of me killing innocents.....In reality, I so abhor the idea of shooting to kill a fellow human being that I would probably not shoot at all.
will you still attempt to save them in this imperfect scenario? (note you may or may not kill an innocent....its a risk, will you take it?
As I have said before, I would not shoot if there was any chance of killing an innocent.
What this tells you about my moral values I don’t know......What it does say is that we are completely different......I have never handled a weapon, you are an IDF officer with the power of life or death over innocent civilians.
Under no circumstances would I shoot-to-kill at a figure which might be an innocent Gaza goat-herd who happened to stray within 100m of the fence.....The fact that he might....just might be carrying an explosive device would in no way relieve me of the responsibility to be absolutely certain that the figure was not innocent.....As you know, several innocent Gazan’s have been killed in this way by IDF soldiers.....As you say, imperfect knowledge is very much a part of any war, but concern that the figure he was about to shoot might be an innocent should have been uppermost in the mind of the soldier....Are you satisfied that it would have been had the soldier been one of your men?
What is your difficulty in answering my questions? I list them below for your convenience:
1. Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they? Even assuming the most pesimistic estimates, there is no immediate threat......How can you justify an attack now which at best it is only going to delay Iranian nuclear development by two years but at worst, might result in the deaths of millions?.
2. Are you claiming that the International Commissions conclusions on the 1982 Lebanon war are irrelevant?
3. You have said that 100,000 Iraqi deaths were not justified...The PLO rockets fired at Israel before 1982 caused few deaths....The 1982 war resulted in deaths of 17,000 Lebanese .......Were those 17,000 deaths justified by the deaths of two Israelis?........Were they justified by Sharon’s failed attempt to achieve regime change in Lebanon?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)you ask a foolish/innocent question..what are the chances of killing an innocent?.....that can never be answered. people move, bullets ricochet, some bullets wounds kill, some don't, guns are not always accurate. Hence there will be chance of you hitting an innocent, in which case you wont shoot to protect your own kids.
so this what i understand from you (correct me if i am wrong).
would not be able to live with myself if I had killed an innocent to save my kids or my wife or myself.
basically your so worried about being psychologically damaged or making a mistake you would rather your children die in front of your own eyes, then you do anything about it.
In my world thats "dereliction of duty, an immoral position. In my world, one has a duty to protect ones children, it may cost us our lives, or some psychological damage (as per your fear), or others, but if we have to power to protect them, we try...we don't watch somebody kill them if we have the option to try to stop them. (such a though give me shivers....)
I, on the other hand, would have a problem "living with myself" had i done nothing and watched them get killed
______
as far as my question WWII, you didn't answer. are you having difficulty with that question?
The US armed forces declared war on Germany, when germany didn't attack US and the US killed many many civilians during the war. Are you saying the US should not have join the war?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)basically your so worried about being psychologically damaged or making a mistake you would rather your children die in front of your own eyes, then you do anything about it.
I didn’t mention pysochological damage......I just said I was unlikely ever to shoot to kill another human.
In my world thats "dereliction of duty, an immoral position. In my world, one has a duty to protect ones children, it may cost us our lives, or some psychological damage (as per your fear),ut if we have to power to protect them, we do so.
"Deriliction of duty” is a military term. I’m a civilian I know of no civilian law that talks about dereliction of duty. Anyway, as I said, we are completely different. You obviously don’t have a problem killing innocent people just to save your own skin or that of your children.
You seem to have a hierarchy score-card of human beings....Your children seem to be at the top, then your family, then your friends/colleagues, then other Israel citizens and finally, the other inhabitants of this world....It would be interesting to know how you place the relative values of your hierarchy members in terms of innocents you would be prepared to kill to save them.
What sort of morality do you call that?
I, on the other hand, would have a problem "living with myself" had i done nothing and watched them get killed
How many innocents would you be prepared to kill to save the lives of your children? I have given you my answer, now how about an answer from you?
........................................................................
as far as my question WWII, you didn't answer. are you having difficulty with that question?
Do check back before you make silly accusations wasting my time. My post No132 included the following:
You asked:
How about Hitler, WWII, should have the allies attacked germany earlier before hitler got the chance to be responsible for the death of 20million? 20 million is a lot more than 100,000. Or japan? should japan have been attacked much earlier and saved many?
My answer:
No ......Unless Western leaders had cast iron proof that Hitler & Tojo were definitely going to attack them.....In any case, neither Britain nor France were ever in a position to force Hitler to abandon his plans.
Wasn’t that clear enough for you?
.........................................................................
The US armed forces declared war on Germany, when germany didn't attack US and the US killed many many civilians during the war. Are you saying the US should not have join the war?
Do check your history...Hitler formally declared war on the USA in his Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941.
......................................................................
Now, can we get back to the question of your support for an Israeli attack on Iran?......If my questions are so easy to answer, what is stopping you doing so?
.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the question remains unanswered....the US killed many many civilians during WWII, was that justified in your world view
Hitler had already taken over austria by force, that wasn't enough for the world to start acting? or if a dictator goes to war on small countries, wins quickly, your attitude is: so be it? they won, now leave them alone, no more killing....
----
Deriliction of duty” is a military term. I’m a civilian I know of no civilian law that talks about dereliction of duty
we're not talking about a "law" were talking about morality.
----
You seem to have a hierarchy score-card of human beings....Your children seem to be at the top, then your family, then your friends/colleagues, then other Israel citizens and finally, the other inhabitants of this world.
yes definitely...most of us do. Back to the store being robbed. Next to you are two kids you don't know, your own two kids are not within sight. As the robbers enter, most of us will immediately start searching for our own kids and when we find them we will put them behind our own bodies to protect them.
you as i know understand, who do not have such a 'score-card" will not look for your own kids, but will hide so as not to get hurt...hell you might even hide behind the two kids next to you, since you have no hierarchy
but those are my conclusions from what you have written...but the WWII question remains, you may not be able to kill someone if there is a possibility of a mistake (which is always) but will you defend others such as the GI's of WWII?
___
we'll get to your questions..i'm still trying to figure out what is moral in your universe
kayecy
(1,417 posts)the question remains unanswered....the US killed many many civilians during WWII, was that justified in your world view
When a state declares war on you, you have little option but to go to war....Unfortunately, many civilians die in war.........If their deaths could be prevented or at least minimized, they should be.
Hitler had already taken over austria by force, that wasn't enough for the world to start acting?
In the 20th century. Many states took over other states and territories...Israel took over parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank...Should the world have reacted to Israel subjugating the peoples of those lands?
In the case of Austria, neither Britain not France had the capacity to eject Hitler...What do you think they should have done?....Chamberlain was in a no-win situation.
or if a dictator goes to war on small countries, wins quickly, your attitude is: so be it? they won, now leave them alone, no more killing.
Lets take a specific example....Poland?.....Britain & France declared war on Germany over Hitler’s invasion of Poland but it was pretty futile. In reality there was no way any state could help the Poles except Russia.....Nevertheless, I think Britain did right to declare war on Hitler over Poland, in spite of the prospect of war causing millions of people to die......The alternative could have been even worse.
.................................................................................
we're not talking about a "law" were talking about morality.
You brought up the question of “dereliction of duty”, not me. I believe killing innocents to save your own kith and kin is immoral.
but those are my conclusions from what you have written
And your conclusions are what?....That it is more moral to kill innocents to protect your kith and kin than to refuse to kill them?.......I ask you again:
How many innocents would you be prepared to kill to save the lives of your children? I have given you my answer, now how about an answer from you?
You seem strangely reluctant to answer simple questions – What is your difficulty?
.............................................................................
but the WWII question remains, you may not be able to kill someone if there is a possibility of a mistake (which is always) but will you defend others such as the GI's of WWII?
It all depends on who is the agressor......If I were in the IDF and fighting one of Israel’s many wars of aggression outside the borders of Israel, I would certainly not take risks with innocent lives just to protect my fellow soldiers.....It would be quite immoral.
If on the other hand I were defending my country against an aggressor, then I would have to do whatever was necessary to avoid being subjugated or ethnically cleansed by that aggressor....I might even join a resistance movement against the aggressor.
............................................................................
...i'm still trying to figure out what is moral in your universe
I think of myself as having a very moral code, particularly when it comes to killing innocent folk.
Why not forget your convoluted hypotheses and take the simple example of a ship’s lifeboat sinking near to shore. There are only two lifejackets in the boat but six people - You with your two kids and an Iranian mother with her two kids. None of you can swim. What do you do...Hand the lifejackets to the Iranians..... Keep them for your kids use or allocate one to an Israeli child and one to an Iranian child?
.................................................................................
we'll get to your questions
Good....Are you incapable of answering questions at the same time as asking them?
.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)nope, not to the depth i like....(hmmm, i notice a bit of impatience over those who are different from you.....)
you didn't answer.....i didn ask for a question i asked for answer:
Hitler had already taken over austria by force, that wasn't enough for the world to start acting?
I think of myself as having a very moral code, particularly when it comes to killing innocent folk.
really? ..so so why did you skip the questions below?
yes definitely (have a hierarchy-you claim you don't)...most of us do. Back to the store being robbed. Next to you are two kids you don't know, your own two kids are not within sight. As the robbers enter, most of us will immediately start searching for our own kids and when we find them we will put them behind our own bodies to protect them.
you as i know understand, who do not have such a 'score-card" will not look for your own kids, but will hide so as not to get hurt...hell you might even hide behind the two kids next to you, since you have no hierarchy
Is that a good description of your "very moral code"?
How many innocents would you be prepared to kill to save the lives of your children? I have given you my answer, now how about an answer from you?
I don't know....i surly would risk many innocents to save my kids, i if there were 2 bad guys and 100 innocents and the bad guy was about to kill my kids (or so i believe) i would open fire immediately....without hesitation. You on the other hand, would rather watch your children die.
we have very very different ideas of what is morally correct and what our roles are as parents.
_____
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Hitler had already taken over austria by force, that wasn't enough for the world to start acting?
Start acting – YES ........Start military action -No.
.............................................................
so so why did you skip the questions below? ........Is that a good description of your "very moral code"?
Not content with not answering my questions and telling me I haven’t answered one of yours when I have, you now accuse me of not answering a question which you never asked!
The answer to this new question of yours is “No”....It does not represent my moral code.
I will go further and correct your “understanding”....I would probably be just like most parents and look for my kids first....And no, I hope I would not hide behind the two kids next to me.....Does that help you?
..................................................................
My question:
How many innocents would you be prepared to kill to save the lives of your children? I have given you my answer, now how about an answer from you?
Your answer:
I don't know....i surly would risk many innocents to save my kids, i if there were 2 bad guys and 100 innocents and the bad guy was about to kill my kids (or so i believe) i would open fire immediately....without hesitation. You on the other hand, would rather watch your children die
Ahhhh...An answer! (of sorts).....Please allow me to ask you for clarification by paraphrasing your answer:
i surly would risk many innocents to save my kids, i if there was Iran and 1 million innocents and Iran was about to kill my kids in 3-4 years time (or so i believe) i would open fire immediately and hopefully delay the killing of my kids by up to two years....without hesitation.
Is that an approximate extension of your hypothesis to Israel’s attack on Iran?....You would be prepared for Israel to kill perhaps 1,000,000 innocent Iranians (perhaps amongst them some of the 300,000 Jewish Iranians?) just to delay a hypothetical attack on Israel by up to two years?
............................................................
This is a start on answering my questions, now go on to the rest of them.
.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)a gunman enters the store and you leave too innocent kids to go find your own?....so i guess we can say you do after all have a hierarchy...otherwise you wouldn't have left those kids.
glad we cleared that up- now its a matter of degree
___________
Hitler had already taken over austria by force, that wasn't enough for the world to start acting?
Start acting – YES ........Start military action -No
Why not? looking back in history we know that nothing was going to stop him other than military force....
___________
just to delay a hypothetical attack on Israel by up to two years?
where did you get two years from?.....all of a sudden you can read the future?
____
btw whereas i enjoy your sarcasm, i was wondering are you one of the "progressives' that love diversity unless your being challenged, in which case you no longer "love" diversity? and attempt to show how intellectually superior you are? .....you aren't, not in academic degrees, nor in knowledge of the I/P conflict and not in life experiences. I will challenge your interpretation of morality as someone who is equal to me, just don't attempt to show any "superiority via sarcasm"...because you don't have it.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Why not? looking back in history we know that nothing was going to stop him other than military force....
1. Looking back in history now is simple, but at the time Hitler took over Austria, most of us did not have crystal balls.
2. You are correct when you say "Nothing but military force"....Neither Britain nor France had enough military force to make Hitler change his plans, whatever they were.
......................................................................
just to delay a hypothetical attack on Israel by up to two years?
where did you get two years from?.....all of a sudden you can read the future
I can’t read the future of course, but that is not important because I am not threatening to go to war with anyone.........Israel, however, is........ It is prepared to go to war on its guess of what the future might be. That any attack by Israel would delay Iran’s program for up two years is all over the internet if you care to look....Of course, no one (including Israel) knows, but not even Israel is suggesting that an attack would halt the program.
Now, do you think you could answer the question please instead of prevaricating over whether the delay will be 2,3 or even 4 years?
My question was:
Would you be prepared for Israel to kill perhaps 1,000,000 innocent Iranians (perhaps amongst them some of the 300,000 Jewish Iranians?) just to delay a hypothetical attack on Israel by 2 years (or 3, or 4 if you prefer)?
I am, of course, just trying to find out how amoral you and your government really are!
.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so you believe this "internet person(s) who can read the future?....i would like to know more how they know this?
actually i thought the Iranians were keeping it a secret what their doing....so how does this internet know so much?
this is not a delay, its the core of your question....your saying that an attack on iran will solve nothing but kill people, so we have to discover how this internet that you clearly believe knows so much.
_______
i don't think you've got much on morals, thats for sure, but we'll get into that later....i'm more interested in right now how this internet can read the future, and why you believe it (her?/him?)
________
as far as Hitler and Austria goes.....the german army was quite weak as well, they could had declared war (britan and france) and perhaps saved poland from being raped..or not-the point is they did nothing while austria was conquered and you, as i understand, believe it was the better decision, not to declare war on germany at that point...... Your hesitation for action, for fear of making a mistake, is the kind that, in the end causes far more suffering and deaths than those that act quicker. WWII being the obvious example
(out of curiosity, and i don't want to use this to divert the discussion, so its a one time question: for or against the western intervention in Libya?)
kayecy
(1,417 posts)so you believe this "internet person(s) who can read the future?....i would like to know more how they know this?
Since you appear to have difficulty using Google I will help you.
Haaretz:
"Panetta said he agreed with earlier assessments that a strike would only set Iran's nuclear program back by three years at most"
Time Magazine:
“The defense official told Time, that according to an estimate by the Atomic Energy Commission, Israel will only be able to push back Iran's nuclear program by several months to a year”
YNet News:
"A senior IDF officer told cabinet last fall that the army does not have the ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a "meaningful way,"
Atlantic current affairs magazine:
“The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years."
I am sure you will say that these reference don’t know what they talking about but you seem to be the only one to believe an Israeli strike would put the Iranian program back indefinitely.....Are you privy to something the rest of the world (including IDF intelligence) don’t seem to know?
.
this is not a delay, its the core of your question....your saying that an attack on iran will solve nothing but kill people, so we have to discover how this internet that you clearly believe knows so much.
No, I am not saying that......I am saying that no one......Not you, the Israeli government or the Pentagon knows if an attack will solve anything but it is fairly certain to kill lots of people....If no one can be certain that an attack will solve anything or has an estimate of the maximum number of innocents likely to be killed, how could any rational government decide to go to war unless it is about to be attacked?
as far as Hitler and Austria goes.....the german army was quite weak as well, they could had declared war (britan and france) and perhaps saved poland from being raped..or not-the point is they did nothing while austria was conquered and you, as i understand, believe it was the better decision, not to declare war on germany at that point...... Your hesitation for action, for fear of making a mistake, is the kind that, in the end causes far more suffering and deaths than those that act quicker. WWII being the obvious example
And what makes you think that an attack on Germany by Britain & France in 1939 would have resulted in less deaths during the rest of WW2?......You may remember that your 'weak' German army in 1940 over-ran France in six weeks!
(out of curiosity, and i don't want to use this to divert the discussion, so its a one time question: for or against the western intervention in Libya?)
I’m sorry, I really must draw a line here......I shall be quite happy to answer this question....When you have made a reasonable attempt to answer all those questions of mine which you are stalling over:
1. But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they?
2. I said that there were PLO rocket attacks on Israel...Is it surprising?......Israel was occupying part of Lebanon, over-flying Lebanon and bombing PLO positions.........Are you claiming that the International Commissions conclusions on the 1982 war are irrelevant?
3. As you know, several innocent Gazan’s have been killed in this way by IDF soldiers.....As you say, imperfect knowledge is very much a part of any war, but concern that the figure he was about to shoot might be an innocent should have been uppermost in the mind of the soldier....Are you satisfied that it would have been had the soldier been one of your men?
4. Would you be prepared for Israel to kill perhaps 1,000,000 innocent Iranians (perhaps amongst them some of the 300,000 Jewish Iranians?) just to delay a hypothetical attack on Israel by 2 years (or 3, or 4 if you prefer)?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:13 AM - Edit history (13)
and the CIA...did you know they were wrong about Iraqs' WMD, did you know the CIA has been wrong by just about everyone else's nuclear weapons?
and your using the CIA, as some kind of knowledge base on estimating when the iran can develop a nuclear bomb?
_______________
actually i do know how to use google..guess what i found? within less than a second
with your sources?...that iraq has wmd, (one example)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,437398,00.html
do you really want me to list the thousands of hits in google about how wrong the Times magazines, the CIA, "israeli officials have been in the past?
Using "google" as some kind of definitive concensus is absolutely ridiculous, it has no credibility in that department, ....unless you agree that "groupthink" defines history and facts. (do you?)
and just for fun: Iraq never did rebuild theirs, Syria is not rebuilding theres....clearly reading the future does have some problems
_____
I am sure you will say that these reference don’t know what they talking about but you seem to be the only one to believe an Israeli strike would put the Iranian program back indefinitely.....Are you privy to something the rest of the world (including IDF intelligence) don’t seem to know?
.....as an expert it won't take you long to find other opinions about why its good to hit iran. I get the impression that you will make some kind of "declaration" that all of those are "right wingers" and therefore "not worthy of an opinion" (i always like that system, it sure makes it easy to declare moral superiority by not having to defends one opinion.)
but you seem to be the only one to believe an Israeli strike would put the Iranian program back indefinitely
I didn't claim that.....
________
But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they?
how would i know? Your the one who can read the future, you have access to their targeting computers, i don't. You tell me, is israel targeted? and by which missiles? and how many? and what are their targets and loads? I just know about their threats and their present actions and history, and from there makes guesses.
as far as germany goes, when it attacked austria, unlike you, i don't have a crystal ball, and make no claims whether or not hitler would have been stopped, but i can declare two things:
It would have been the moral thing to do,
it might have changed his strategy which would have led to a different series of events. WWII killed over 60million, I believe that strategy used by the allies was not such a good one.- you for reasons of your morality seem to think that it was an acceptable strategy. (and you claim some concern about civilians being killed.....clearly you have exceptions)
___
how could any rational government decide to go to war unless it is about to be attacked?
??? countries don't always know just when they are going to be attacked.......(duh!)
I thought you claimed you know how to use google? try looking up "surprise attack".....it might open your eyes how in every period, the "best technology" for various reasons didn't work and the attackers succeeded in attacking before the "attacked" new it was about to be attacked.
hence countries were attacked before they knew it was going to happen, other countries attacked, declared war, before they were even attacked themselves. (Britan and France on Germany)
you did not know these things? (you seem to base your rational on very selective and minimal knowledge).
here i'll make it easy: how would israel not know they are being attacked, before a nuclear explosion?
here are a few simple options:
will their radar be jammed, will the operators be watching porn while the missiles are launched? will it be during a maintenance period, will the decision maker make a poor judgement call?..the list is as endless as the list of successful surprise attacks....
(or do you think us israelis are infallible and can never fail?)
but i do think we are getting somewhere:
this i believe is an approximation of you "morality."
your not willing to stop a "potential" attack upon a country if 10 innocents may be killed
you are willing to accept as the price (even though one is "careful"
1000 innocents being killed after the attack has actuallly started. (example WWII)
make sense?
____
a word about the PLO in Lebanon: they were an foreigners occupying S.Lebanon, with their own army and laws and as such had no rights to "defend" Lebanon or anything else for that matter (especially not from non violent recon flights that they couldn't hit anyway)..and their shooting random missiles at population centers can easily be considered a war crime by your definition. Or perhaps you would like to defend their occupation of S. Lebanon and their missiles shooting trying to kill civilians (i always love this part as you basically have to say the PLO/Palestinians/Lebanese are morons, don't know what they are doing, can't understand anything and can't be blamed for anything....but go for it.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)......and your telling me i don't know how to use google?.....if your such an expert it won't take you long to find other opinions about why its good to hit iran.
I challenge you to produce one authoritative reference that claims the Iranian program will be put back indefinitely by Israel's planned attack.
..........................
as far as germany goes, when it attacked austria, unlike you, i don't have a crystal ball, and make no claims whether or not hitler would have been stopped, but i can declare two things: .........It would have been the moral thing to do,Germany did not attack Austria in 1938. The take-over was completed peacefully with the majority Austrians (ethnic Germans)welcoming the Germans troops as they drove into Austria........ You are now claiming that the moral thing to have done as a result of this peaceful take-over by Germany was for Britain and France to make a surprise attack on Germany?
...........................
and what would be the signs that iran is attacking israel?...as per their many verble attacks about destroying the 'zionist entity
The usual signs in the build up to any attack......Demands from the Iranian leader that Israel do something or be attacked.....Evidence of a nuclear attack capability.......Aquiring state-of-the art military aircraft and bombs. ......In other words, just the sort of things that Netanyahu has been doing in preparation for his attack.
...........................
My statement:
but you seem to be the only one to believe an Israeli strike would put the Iranian program back indefinitely
Your response:
I didn't claim that
Do you claim anything at all other than being moral?......You seem to prepared to go to war with no idea whether the attack will delay Iran’s nuclear development by 1 month, 24 months or forever...... You seem prepared to go to war without any idea of the number of innocents you might kill......You seem prepared to go to war simply on the basis of the dubious translation of Iranian verbal threats......What do you claim?
.............................
My question:
But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they?
Your response:
.....how would i know?
Now this is the crux of our differences....Ignore the above questions if you wish, but your response to the following will be very illuminating:
I challenge you, Pelsar, to find even one authoritative reference that claims that Iranian nuclear missiles are an imminent threat.
Your response or non-response to this challenge will show which of us is either ignorant, plain stupid, or both.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)find me someone who can read the future......
I challenge you, Pelsar, to find even one authoritative reference that claims that Iranian nuclear missiles are an imminent threat.
and while your looking in google for this person, please tell me how the authorities "missed these events:
Egyptian/Syrian attack on israel Oct 1973
Japan attack on Pearl Harbor 1941
Attack on the Twin Towers: 2001
Germany attacking France 1940
Israel attacking Egypt/Syria/Jordan 1967
Iraq invasion of Kuwait
Arab "spring" revolts
those are just to name a few........
Your response or non-response to this challenge will show which of us is either ignorant, plain stupid, or both.
_______________________________________
clearly you trust the authorities...the same authorities that gave you Iraqs WMD..... so I'll let you decide if your stupid for still trusting them....
kayecy
(1,417 posts)My challenge:
I challenge you, Pelsar, to find even one authoritative reference that claims that Iranian nuclear missiles are an imminent threat.
Your response
and while your looking in google for this person, please tell me how the authorities "missed these events:
I do not understand your response. Is that an admission that you can’t find such a reference?
The interesting thing for me is that you appear to think it not impossible that Iranian nuclear missiles are a threat now. I agree with you!
However, where as I would do everything to stop even a conventional war, you seem quite sanguine about an Israeli first-strike which could end up in a nuclear exchange!....Just think about that.....Israel triggering off the first ever war between nuclear powers resulting in possibly millions of deaths on both sides......Where is your moral responsibility to your kids now?
........................................................
I am sorry, I missed your defence of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon......You said:
..a word about the PLO in Lebanon: they were an foreigners occupying S.Lebanon, with their own army and laws and as such had no rights to "defend" Lebanon or anything else for that matter (especially not from non violent recon flights that they couldn't hit anyway)..
It is true that the the PLO were foreigners in South Lebanon, but did Lebanon object to the PLO 'defending Lebanon' as much as it objected to Israel’s army which had controlled what it called a “security zone” in south Lebanon since 1978?
More significantly, the International commission investigating Israel’s 1982 war (Chairman sean MacBride) concluded: “.....the government of Israel has committed acts of aggression contrary to international law". .. More than 17,000 Lebanese were killed in that war, but I suppose to anyone happy at starting a nuclear war, that is a mere handful of deaths.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)your asking me to find a "authoritative reference".... i'm asking you if your asking for the same kind of "authoritative reference that declared iraq had WMD. (so i'll know what to look for)
is it?
____
btw you keep making the wrong assumptions on my stand:
i never claimed the an iranian strike is "imminent" you seem to believe that i do
I never claimed that any israel strike will only set it back a few years (or these the invisible authorities of yours?)
i am amused how you make these assumptions about my stand, and then base an argument on them. I suppose its easier to have an argument with what you want to believe my stand is....
____
my stand, to clarify is that i cannot read the future, your "authorities" that you so believe in (sounds like a religion to me) also cannot read the future, have been wrong before, and are subject to politics, hence i don't believe them either....
I don't have access to iranian computer systems, i don't know what the iranian generals are saying to peers and their own politicians...in fact i know very little. (you as i understand about your posts do know these things....)
the only thing i do know is that iran has publicly threatened to remove israel and is actively helping groups try to murder me. They are also as far as i understand developing nuclear weapons. and most important, they are playing with us and the world...and neither me nor my fellow countryman find it amusing-and they know it, yet they still play.
i cannot pretend its not happening.....nor can i pretend the world will do anything about it, the world in case you haven't noticed has a very very poor record in reacting before disasters happen, politicians prefer your approach, better to kill, 100,000 after the war breaks out then kill 1000 to prevent it. I understand its an easier approach to defend because you cannot defend something that was prevented from happening.
that is all nice and good if you live in somalia and no one really gives a shit if you live or die as you have almost no options. We have options...
now that i've finished actually explaining to you..i'm still fascinated about these authorities that you so believe in.....are they not the same the declared there was WMD in Iraq?
this question has to be answered as its the crux of your whole case... (this should be fun....)
_____
and the PLO in Lebanon...you know those guys that attacked israel constantly across the border, that i believe your still defending (i always enjoy the arguments of those who try to defend groups that target civilians-especially those that "care" about civilians.
here this is from the simplest source of all:wikipedia
By 1975, the presence of a foreign armed force in the form of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) guerrillas, who exercised a veto on Lebanese politics, had a serious effect on Lebanon. The militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of the PLO guerrilla forces, sparked an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions.
that arm race eventually led to the Lebanese civil war that kill over 300,00 people. (mostly civilians, the ones you claim you care about)
so how does that defense go again for the PLO that took over S. Lebanon? the Lebanese govt didn't object..still want to claim that? or do you have a secondary defense for the PLO?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)i never claimed the an iranian strike is "imminent" you seem to believe that i do
So when I asked you if the Iranian missiles were an imminent threat, why did you answer “...how would I know”?
If we are now agreed that the Iranian nuclear missiles are not an immediate threat, why is Netanyahu hell bent on attacking Iran now?
I never claimed that any israel strike will only set it back a few years
So, what do you think is the number of years an Israeli attack will set back the Iranian nuclear program?........If your reply is that you cannot read the future you will be saying that you have no idea what, if any, the proposed attack will achieve but nevertheless you are still prepared to support it....Is that your position?
better to kill, 100,000 after the war breaks out then kill 1000 to prevent it.
What you mean is that it is better to kill 1,000 non-Israelis than take a risk that something may not happen in the future.......The same future that you have declared “.. i cannot read the future.”......You cannot read the future so you would rather kill 1,000, 100,000, perhaps even millions of innocent people?....Have I understood you correctly?
..................
i'm still fascinated about these authorities that you so believe in.....are they not the same the declared there was WMD in Iraq?
The people pushing for war in Iran now are the same people who were pushing for war on Iraq with no consideration of the likely death toll or the chances of a successful outcome......Who are the war hawks demanding the US/Israel attack Iran?
They’re a collection of think-tankers and politicians from Rick Santorum to John McCain to Elliott Abrams to John Bolton, their defining characteristic is that they were equally apocalyptic about the threat from Iraq, and equally nonchalant about the difficulties of successfully attacking it. The story of the Iraq debate was, in large measure, the story of their triumph over the career military and intelligence officials like Eric Shinseki and Joseph Wilson—whose successors are now warning against attacking Iran.
Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, DC in April 2002 and spoke in the U.S. Senate, telling his audience "the urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount," and that the campaign "deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments."
Do you still believe what the Iran war hawks say?
Look at what Israeli experts are saying:
In December, Haaretz reported that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had called Iran a threat, but not an existential one. Earlier this month, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy echoed that view, declaring that “it is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel.” That same week, former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said virtually the same thing: that “Iran poses a serious threat but not an existential one.”
And your considered opinion is still that Israel should proceed to attack Iran?
..................................
so how does that defense go again for the PLO that took over S. Lebanon? the Lebanese govt didn't object..still want to claim that? or do you have a secondary defense for the PLO
so how does your defence go for Israel occupying South Lebanon much earlier?...Do you still claim that Israel had no alternative to starting a war that killed 17,000 Lebanese?...Do you still claim that Israel did not commit acts of aggression contrary to International Law?
Stop hiding behind the PLO’s stupid lethal acts and face up to the stupid lethal acts of the GOI who had far less excuse than the PLO.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)who are they? You've made it clear your belief is based on them, so who are these "secret know it alls? ......what is the difference between your authorities now vs the authorities that agree that there was WMD in Iraq?
simple question....i've now asked 3x (you might notice i did not ask about "war hawks"-and yes it obvious your trying to divert))
______________
the PLO in Lebanon?....well, are you still claiming that they were "welcome there by the Lebanese, that they weren't occupying S.Lebanon?, they weren't shooting missiles and attacking almost daily? (you keep trying to divert to Israel-i'm not buying, we are with your original claim and yes your that transparent)
_____
in my world you don't get to make a claim, then once we discover that its wrong/stuiped/ignorent..... (as per your statement) you get to all of a sudden forget you made the claim:
Your response or non-response to this challenge will show which of us is either ignorant, plain stupid, or both.
____________
we've got two Biggies here: these Authorities of yours that you so trust, and the PLO in Lebanon
kayecy
(1,417 posts)i'm still asking about the "authorities" or YOURs
who are they? ......what is the difference between your authorities now vs the authorities that agree that there was WMD in Iraq?......simple question....i've now asked 3x (you might notice i did not ask about "war hawks"-yes it obvious your trying to divert)
You obviously did not read what I wrote....Look back at my last post and you will see quotations from Tamir Pardo, Israeli intelligence chief, Efraim Halevy and Dan Halutz (Israeli miltary & intelligence ) ....Earlier I quoted Leon Panetta, Pentagon.
Other sources I consider authoritative include:
Aviv Kochavai , Israeli military intelligence
Yoram Cohen, Israeli domestic intelligence
Meir Dagan , former head of Mossad
Gbi Ashkenazi , former IDF chief.
Yuval Diskin, former head of the Shabak
Over to you:
Where do you get the information from which you base your belief that an attack on Iran is justified? Colleagues?... Netanyahu’s cronies?.....the Israeli right-wing press..... gut feeling?.......... or perhaps you are simply happy to remain ignorant and support an attack that you have no idea whether it will succeed,...no idea whether there will be major repercussions.........no idea how many innocents will be killed .....and no idea whether there is even a real risk of a future attack from Iran?
..............................................
we've got two Biggies here: these Authorities of yours that you so trust and the PLO in Lebanon
I have already rebutted many of your claims by quoting from sources I consider authoritative.......What more do you want?.........I’m still waiting for even one authoritative reference from you!
The PLO are not a Biggie at all, they are a distraction introduced by yourself...It is Israel’s aggressive history that is the Biggie. Why, in view of Israel’s record of aggressive attacks in the past are you supporting yet another aggressive Israeli military action?.
Many of Israel’s previous aggressive attacks merely strengthened its enemies in the long run, but for some reason you seem convinced that this will not happen with Iran.....Why?
the PLO in Lebanon?....well, are you still claiming that they were "welcome there by the Lebanese, that they weren't occupying S.Lebanon?
The PLO are irrelevant...You are avoiding the real issue...Did Israel carry out an act of agression against Lebanon or not?....Were the 17,000 deaths resulting from Israel’s decision to go to war justified?
...................................
in my world you don't get to make a claim, then once we discover that its wrong/stuiped (as per your statement) you get to all of a sudden forget you made the claim:
It would save time if you were to tell me which claim I made turned out to wrong or stupid instead of making elliptical statements.....If you are referring to my simple question:
But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they?.
A simple yes or no answer from you was all that was required but instead you dodged the question by answering with another question.
In my world, I expect a person to be able to defend his position rationally without recourse to silly comments, dodging or refusing to answer simple questions.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 11:21 AM - Edit history (4)
Time magazine (as per your previous post)
CIA
Panetta
israeli Intelligence...IDF generals etc.
those are your "authorities
____
so when i show how wrong Time Magazine has been in the past, how the CIA has been wrong in the past, how israeli generals, mossad people have been wrong in the past..
where does that leave your "authorities"?....why will you still give them credit, when such authorities have been wrong in the past? (don't worry, i'll give you examples)
how do you even choose "authorities"...if they agree with you, then they are an authority and if they don't ....all of a sudden they are not?
how about other 'authorities"...i mean like how do you decide which ones know what they're talking about and can read the future and which ones don't?
You actually believe that Dan Halutz is such an authority in Military Intelligence for example? LOL!
_______
The PLO are irrelevant...You are avoiding the real issue...Did Israel carry out an act of agression against Lebanon or not?....Were the 17,000 deaths resulting from Israel’s decision to go to war justified?
yes i understand why you want to claim the PLO is irrelevant...its like claiming Germany was irrelevant during WWII. Like i wrote you've got a great system, if something interferes with your viewpoint, just declare it "irrelevant" so then you can ignore it.
i guess you missed the little fact that until the PLO came to Lebanon the border was in fact quiet...when the PLO came an took over S.Lebanon, they started attacking israel....(ok, did you not know this?--ignorance?)
your still transparent as you slide away from your original statements...that the PLO wasn't attacking israel and was welcomed in to S.Lebanon-still stand by those?
_________
you've asked this several times...
But Iranian nuclear missiles are not an imminent threat, are they?.
what part of "how the hell should I know" is hard to understand...your the one claiming that you can read the future (with your authorities )...all i get to do is guess, since my flux capacitor is broken, and the mullahs haven't confided in me as they have you and your "authorities"
kayecy
(1,417 posts)so when i show how wrong Time Magazine has been in the past, how the CIA has beenwrong in the past, how israeli generals, mossad people have been wrong in the past..
Please don’t waste your time rubbishing publications or organisations...My sources are individual experts...Once you have listed your own sources, I shall be happy to debate with you the validity and previous errors of my sources.
Have you actually read any authoritative sources or are you simply happy to rely on your own gut feelings?
so what i understand from what you've written you believe that all of these authorities can read the future, or have access to iranian computers, know the secrets of Iranian missile orders etc......... is that a correct clarification of how you see these authorities?
No it is not...Please don’t be fatuous.....I believe my sources to be some of the best available because of their professional employment and experience.
I mean what makes Dan Halutz such an authority in Military Intelligence for example?
Dan Halutz, as I am sure you are aware, is a former chief of the IDF and his family came from Iran.
Please note: I am neither prepared to read any more of your comments about my sources nor answer your questions until you have listed your own sources.
............................................................
yes i understand why you want to claim the PLO is irrelevant...its like claiming Germany was irrelevant during WWII.
You are wrong, it is like claiming the Polish resistance was irrelevant...The instigators of WW2 were the Germans just as the Israelis were the instigators of the 1982 Lebanese war.
i guess you missed the little fact that until the PLO came to Lebanon the border was in fact quiet...when the PLO came an took over S.Lebanon, they started attacking israel....(ok, did you not know this?--ignorance?)
You are being fatuous again.
your still transparent as you slide away from your original statements...that the PLO wasn't attacking israel and was welcomed in to S.Lebanon-still stand by those?
I stated from the beginning that the PLO was attacking Israel. The IDF was also attacking the PLO and had occupied parts of Lebanon.....What is the point you are trying to make?
I also stated the following:
“It is true that the the PLO were foreigners in South Lebanon, but did Lebanon object to the PLO more than it objected to Israel’s army which had controlled what it called a “security zone” in south Lebanon since 1978?”
I never claimed the PLO were welcome in Lebanon....... Why do you deliberately falsify my statements?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)when the PLO wasn't in Lebanon, Israel was not attacking Lebanon was it?.....nor was it occupying lebanon.....seems to me its pretty clear, that only when the PLO moved in to lebanon and started attacking israel was their an israeli response.
....which is why the PLO is very relevant to 1982, If there was no PLO there would not have been a war in 1982, since the goal was to remove the PLO from Lebanon (thats why the PLO is relevant...sheesh....you actually didn't know that?)
______
and let me get this 100% correct: you respect Dan Halutz opinion on military matters. (boy this is going to be fun)
kayecy
(1,417 posts)....which is why the PLO is very relevant to 1982, If there was no PLO there would not have been a war in 1982, since the goal was to remove the PLO from Lebanon (thats why the PLO is relevant...sheesh....you actually didn't know that?)
The 1982 MacBride International Commission report:
The commission says that Israel was indeed guilty of acts of aggression contrary to international law; it made use of forbidden weapons and methods; it deliberately, indiscriminately and recklessly bombed civilian targets – ‘for example, schools, hospitals and other non-military targets’; it systematically bombed towns, cities, villages and refugee camps; it deported, dispersed and ill-treated civilian populations; it had no really valid reasons ‘under international law for its invasion of Lebanon, for the manner in which it conducted hostilities, or for its actions as an occupying force’; it was directly responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.
(...that's why the PLO was irrelevant.....sheesh....you actually didn't know that?)
and let me get this 100% correct: you respect Dan Halutz opinion on military matters. (boy this is going to be fun)
I repeat: I am neither prepared to read any more of your comments on my sources nor answer your questions until you have listed your own sources. (Assuming that you have actually done some reading on the subject)
.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 03:16 AM - Edit history (2)
If the PLO didn't take over S. Lebanon, didn't attack israel over the years, then israel would never would have entered Lebanon to stop the attacks from Lebanese territory. (see Jordan, Egypt and Syria for examples and proof)
whether or not some commission or other disagrees with the way israel wages war is a whole different matter...unless of course you just think were sadists and like to kill and torture for fun (some do). As far as who gets to decide if its a valid reason or not -the invasion of Lebanon...it should be clear by now that the earths commissions and powers that be are very politicalized and don't really care if we live or die and consequently their opinions don't carry much weight....(examples: western massacres of Libyans, Russian massacres, Chinese massacres, Lebanese massacres, American massacres....pretty much ignored by the "powers that be"
as far as authoritative figures that tell me what to think, or the opposite, people of authority that i respect because they agree with me...in case you haven't figured it out yet....
ZERO, NONE, NADA....i'm a big boy and make up my own mind of matters that i feel i have enough understanding of. I don't need some "authoritative figure (whatever the hell that is) to tell me how to think or to confirm my views (jesus you actually need someone of authority to validate your views?...ugh!)
if you want to know what are my sources?....they're all around be they talk shows, interview, internet, radio, personal experiences, history..., if the subject interests me i just open the media channels and pick up the info from right, left and middle sources and make up my own mind.
________________
.... Dan Halutz???? Gabi Ashkenanzi?.........OMG, don't even TRY to justify those sources. This leads me to one conclusion: you just look for "authority figures" to validate your opinion, just knowing that they have some "rank" in the IDF. If they were to change their minds, you would erase them in a second... wouldn't you... (i.e. your just "using them"
but it does explain your posts, they have a certain disconnect from reality, as if you have no idea how societies, armies, people react and interact with one another-so if someone who is grounded agrees with you, you get that validation.
Heres a lesson in whether or note the "authorities" know more than you:
if "authorities" of the "same rank/education/experience have opposite opinions, it means their making a judgement call and neither have any special knowledge and your free to make up your own mind....try it, you'll be amazed at how interesting it is to listen to both sides of an argument when your base is that both sides have valid arguments.... (wow, that will be a tough one for you....)
theres an expression for it: having an open mind.
______________________________
just for fun..i respect the views of Stanly Fisher, since he seems to know what he is talking about, judging from the results whereas i have no understanding nor interest in the subject (its economics)
kayecy
(1,417 posts)well we finally realized that the earths commissions and powers that be don't always have our best interests at heart and don't really care if we live or die and consequently their opinions don't carry much weight....
There, there little man, dry your tears, International Commissions are not all against you....Anyway, you still have your toys....You can always go and bomb some nasty foreigner, that will show the world what you think of them.
as far as authoritative figures that tell me what to think, or the opposite, people of authority that i respect because they agree with me...in case you haven't figured it out yet.... ZERO, NONE, NADA....Thank you....Why did it take you so long to admit it?
if you want to know what are my sources?....they're all around be they talk shows, interview, internet, radio, personal experiences, history..., if the subject interests me i just open the media channels and pick up the info from right, left and middle sources and make up my own mind.
You make your mind up from listening to tittle-tattle chatter........Why listen to it at all, since most if it will be from people less-educated, less-informed and less-experienced than yourself?
............................................
So where have we got to? Let’s see if we can agree on a few of the generally accepted knowns and the known-unknowns:
The Iranians have no ability to conquer and occupy Israel.
There is no immediate threat to Israel from Iranian nuclear missiles.
There is no evidence that Iran has decided to make nuclear weapons as opposed to building a capability to make nuclear weapons.
Like Nasser, the Iranian leaders have made threats which may or may not be significant in the future.
An Israeli attack may kill any number of innocents, perhaps in the millions.
An Israeli attack, even if successful, may only put back Iran’s nuclear development by a couple of years.
Unless an Israeli attack managed to destroy Iran’s nuclear know-how, even a successful attack might cause Iran to quit the NPT and develop a nuclear deterrent in the same way that the destruction of Osirik forced Sadam to accelerate his nuclear development.
An Israeli attack may fail...It could simply result in the deaths of many innocents and yet still leave the Iranian program unaffected.
An Israeli attack and the Iranian response could lead to a wider Middle East war which would benefit no one but Al Qaida.
Given time, Iran’s opposition may topple the present regime. An Israeli attack would cripple any Iranian opposition to the Ayatollahs.
I invite you to rephrase any of the above statements you disagree with.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 05:13 AM - Edit history (1)
if your playing a what if game...which is what all the militaries are now doing...
your suppose to add the "other side as well.
here i'll give you a starting point:
the israeli govt and US govt go with your opinion...
israel does not hit the iranians, nor does the the US,
the iranians make good on their promise to remove the zionist regime, secretly manufacture a nuclear bomb, put it on a ballistic missile attacks tel aviv and kills 5 million people.
and fool all you smart western people who didn't believe the Iranians for doing what they said they would... (kind of reminds me of the great white man looking down upon the locals...)
_____
you never answered my question: do you and/or your authorities believe they can read the future?....and if not, what makes you so sure you know what will happen?
___
I'll get to your list..im trying to decide how long my list of mistakes the 'authorities" have made in the past...100, 1000?-you know the kind of things you trust these people to decide
___
btw having halutz on your authority list?...you might want to do some research, clearly you know nothing about him other than he was commander of the IDF-and you claim i know nothing!!! I suspect you knowledge of the other "authorities" is just as thin.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)the israeli govt and US govt go with your opinion.....israel does not hit the iranians, nor does the the US, the iranians make good on their promise to remove the zionist regime, secretly manufacture a nuclear bomb, put it on a ballistic missile attacks tel aviv and kills 5 million people. and fool all you smart western people who didn't believe the Iranians for doing what they said they would.
Yes, that is a possibility. Let me add it to the list of unknowns:
1. The iranians may make good on their promise to remove the zionist regime....... and kills 5 million people sometime in the future.
2. The Iranians have no ability to conquer and occupy Israel.
3. There is no immediate threat to Israel from Iranian nuclear missiles.
4. There is no evidence that Iran has decided to make nuclear weapons as opposed to building a capability to make nuclear weapons.
5. Like Nasser, the Iranian leaders have made threats which may or may not be significant in the future.
6. An Israeli attack may kill any number of innocents, perhaps in the millions.
7. An Israeli attack, even if successful, may only put back Iran’s nuclear development by a couple of years.
8. Unless an Israeli attack managed to destroy Iran’s nuclear know-how, even a successful attack might cause Iran to quit the NPT and develop a nuclear deterrent in the same way that the destruction of Osirik forced Sadam to accelerate his nuclear development.
9. An Israeli attack may fail...It could simply result in the deaths of many innocents and yet still leave the Iranian program unaffected.
10. An Israeli attack and the Iranian response could lead to a wider Middle East war which would benefit no one but Al Qaida.
11. Given time, Iran’s opposition may topple the present regime. An Israeli attack would cripple any Iranian opposition to the Ayatollahs.
I take it that after considering all the above possibilities, you would still support an Israeli attack?.......If so can you give me your reasons why you believe that collectively, Unknowns Nos 2-11 do not outweigh Unknown No 1?
...............................
you never answered my question: do you and/or your authorities believe they can read the future?
No.
....and if not, what makes you so sure you know what will happen?
I don’t know what will happen any more than you do.
Only someone planning to start a war needs to be very sure they know what will happen.....Hitler thought he knew what would happen when he invaded Russia....He was wrong......You don’t even claim to know what will happen after an Israeli attack, which makes starting a war plain stupid as well as immoral.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)on one hand you admit you can't read the future....then your write this:
You don’t even claim to know what will happen after an Israeli attack,
this is correct, because i cannot read the future
_______________________
given your above statements...are you now claiming that you do know what will happen after an israeli attack? Your mocking my lack of ability to read the future, leads me to understand that your now claiming you actually know what will happen after an Israeli attack.
(hell i don't even know what will happen during such an attack- will the bombs hit/miss, will there be duds, will the planes be shot down)
i shall teach you something, that even your authorities will agree with me (that means in your language, its valid):
German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke.
“No battle plan,“survives contact with the enemy.”
.....and only a stupid idiot believes they know what will happen, after the war is finished because only such an idiot believes they can read the future, so no i do not claim to know what will happen after an attack, but you seem to (or perhaps its your authorities) , so please enlighten us
_____
one more thought concerning the world you live in:
You don’t even claim to know what will happen after an Israeli attack, which makes starting a war plain stupid as well as immoral.
so if i claim i can read the future i can be moral, if i admit i can't read the future i can be immoral....and your not even kidding are you?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)given your above statements...are you now claiming that you do know what will happen after an israeli attack?
I have never claimed to know what will happen after an Israeli attack, only what might happen.
..................................
Your mocking my lack of ability to read the future
I am not mocking your lack of ability to read the future, I am simply amazed that you appear unable to see what might happen, or if you do, you seem to think it not material. You seem to accept with equanimity the possibility of millions dying as a result of an Israeli attack.
.................................
only such an idiot believes they can read the future, so no i do not claim to know what will happen after an attack, but you seem to (or perhaps its your authorities) , so please enlighten us
I answered this question in my post No165
Your question:
you never answered my question: do you and/or your authorities believe they can read the future
My answer:
No
What more do you want?.......’After the attack’ is the future... Neither you nor I nor the GOI know what will happen....We can, however look at some of the possible outcomes of any attack....I listed some of these in my last pm...I asked you to explain your reasons for thinking Uknown No 1 outweighed Unknowns 2-11...I am still waiting for your response.
.............................................
My statement:
You don’t even claim to know what will happen after an Israeli attack, which makes starting a war plain stupid as well as immoral.
Your response:
so if i claim i can read the future i can be moral, if i admit i can't read the future i can be immoral....and your not even kidding are you
I’m sorry, perhaps I worded my statement badly....I should have said:
You appear to be unaware of the possible negative outcomes of an Israeli attack, which makes starting a war plain stupid as well as immoral.
Have you considered the possible negative outcomes?...If so, why have you never attempted to show why they should be disregarded?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)remember this?
You make your mind up from listening to tittle-tattle chatter........Why listen to it at all, since most if it will be from people less-educated, less-informed and less-experienced than yourself?
this was in your response to my admittance that i don't have any 'authorities" to validate my beliefs. What your response was to mock what is called: research.
i shall explain: research starts off where the person has a theory, a hypothesis or even a belief, and then using as much material on the subject educates him/herself with that material to reach a conclusion. Now and this is the important part, the conclusion is based on what was learned, and what is being learned, its an ongoing process, which may or may not validate the original thesis/belief. However, it does require an open mind.
you are what is referred to as the ideologue...comparable to any religious person where their beliefs come first no matter what additional information one may find. Since you aren't religious in the traditional sense, in that there is a rabbi or priest or iman to confirm or strength what to believe, you use, what you have referred to as "authorities".
These authorities clearly are picked out as people of standing who agree with your ideology and that is all you need to know.
for instance you mentioned dan haluz as one of your authorities. Well Dan Halutz was the architect of the lebanon 2006 war and used a failed strategy that was rather destructive...yet you still consider him "an authority."
and then you chose Gabi Ashkenazi as another of your authoritie/priests. This guy is the opposite of Halutz and used overwhelming power to protect the troops in the gaza invasion (my kind of guy), something i doubt you agree with.
whats the obvious conclusion? you may know nothing about what iran might or might not do, you may know nothing about nuclear warheads, and infact, from what i understand you feel you don't even need to know more because of your ideology and since you have authorities to back up your viewpoint, your viewpoint is validated.
the difference is, some of those authorities may in fact change their minds if the new information that receive warrants it, and if that does happen, you won't be changing your position,(ideologies and the religious never do), in fact you'll just claim its 'irrelevant" you'll just find a replacement.
____________________
i think thats a pretty good description of your ideology....
as far as your possible outcomes...you listed 10 negatives of an israeli raid (the one positive i added). i 'll take you seriously if you can now add 10 positives from an israeli raid.
as an ideologue i realize this might in fact be impossible for you......
kayecy
(1,417 posts)i think thats a pretty good description of your ideology....
You are entitled to your opinion....I, of course think you are talking nonsense and merely waffling about research, hypotheses, and idealogues, to avoid answering the real question.....You may chose to form your beliefs on tittle-tattle, I prefer to base my beliefs on a much wider body of opinion.
Whatever you may think of Dan Haluz as a war strategist, you will, I’m sure accept that he has more knowledge of the ability or otherwise, of the IDF to strike at long distance than yourself or anyone you are likely to hear on a talk show.
Likewise when an ex IDF Chief of staff like Gabi Ashkenazi (your sort of guy) says that Israel has no military option against Iran, is it not worth considering whether he might be right?
.....................
as far as your possible outcomes...you listed 10 negatives of an israeli raid (the one positive i added). i 'll take you seriously if you can now add 10 positives from an israeli raid.
But I do not know of 10 positives, do you?
.....................
Why are you avoiding answering the simple question I put to you?
Please show why, in your opinion the negatives I have listed are outweighed by the risk that Iran may at some time in the future attack Israel with a nuclear weapon.....Please feel free to reinforce your argument with whatever other positives you consider relevant
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the most simplest of research, would have found positive aspects of a strike on iran. The fact that you can't even fathom what they could possible be, shows just how narrow your mind really is...
i'm not avoiding your list, its just made up possibilities based on theories based on imaginations....
for instance:
5.Like Nasser, the Iranian leaders have made threats which may or may not be significant in the future.
what does that mean? May or May not?..i chose may, you chose may not-since you have admitted you can't read the future why even bother with such a question?
6. An Israeli attack may kill any number of innocents, perhaps in the millions.
yes, it may kill 2 it may kill 100,000...do some research before asking
7. An Israeli attack, even if successful, may only put back Iran’s nuclear development by a couple of years.
or it may stop it all together?......again i nor you can read the future, so how is it relevant to anything.....
my favorite question:
10. An Israeli attack and the Iranian response could lead to a wider Middle East war which would benefit no one but Al Qaida.
or maybe it would benefit israel, kuwait, saudi arabia, the Palestinians, Egypt...as the iranian response was all thwarted by israel
how the hell would i know what the response from iran would be if any and what it will do....
11. Given time, Iran’s opposition may topple the present regime. An Israeli attack would cripple any Iranian opposition to the Ayatollahs.
that iranian spring?...did you miss it? it didn't work out too well did it, and since your fantasizing about iran.....this "time thing"..the original theocratic facist revolution was in 1979 thats 30 years before the minor attempt at change that failed.....so when is the next one? be gutsy...1 year? 5 years? 10years?
____________________________
a few positives about destroying the iranians nuclear program, that you cannot possible fathom (try R E S E A R C H- it will broaden your mind...)
iran with nuclear missiles would lead to a nuclear arms race with saudi arabia and kuwait, iraq, etc getting involved leading to a arab middle east war as the usual squabbles get out of hand, israel's move saves the middle east from a nuclear war.
Israel blows up iranian nuclear facilities, saudi arabia, europe, egypt, jordan, all thank israel quietly for doing what had to be done, and they put the sanctions on with teeth, iran, stops the nuclear program. The arab countries realize that israel is in fact their ally, put pressure on the Palestinians that enough is enough, and a real arrangement is made with the Palestinians and a new era of peaceful coexistence begins....
see how easy it is when you do the minimal research and add some imagination to it
__________
Whatever you may think of Dan Haluz as a war strategist, you will, I’m sure accept that he has more knowledge of the ability or otherwise, of the IDF to strike at long distance than yourself or anyone you are likely to hear on a talk show.
Halutz had technical knowledge and of that he is excellent, however a strike on iran is about strategic knowledge, with that he is considered "not so good". (i am making the assumption that it is technically feasible for the sake of the discussion).
my knowledge base is probably quite a bit larger than yours, not only do get to hear what halutz and gabi have to say, i get to hear live the opposing views while they argue it out. I think its safe to say, that kind of knowledge you don't have.... (you can be "brave" now and admit it, its perfectible reasonable to assume that i have better access to such information. It doesn't belittle what you know, nor your opinion, but its does make your attempt to belittle my knowledge base rather pathetic....doesnt it?
_________________________________
OK now one for you...but unlike yours this is a bit more realistic:
iran shoots a missile at israel, israel successfully intercepts it, the electronic devices indicate it was carrying a nuclear device of some kind... (could have been radioactive mice....a test of the israeli defense system)
according to your morals, should israel then strike their nuclear plants and perhaps kill millions? Don't forget this missile interception has been seen only on radar screens: russian, israel, US, turkey, maybe europe...
or should israel, do nothing, play "russian roulette" and let the iranians improve their missiles for a second attempt....and maybe successful, or not....
kayecy
(1,417 posts)5.Like Nasser, the Iranian leaders have made threats which may or may not be significant in the future. ....what does that mean? May or May not?..i chose may, you chose may not-since you have admitted you can't read the future why even bother with such a question?
You have misunderstood me.....I am not asking questions...I am trying to put together a series of statements which, when we have agreed them, can be used as a basis for deciding whether Israel is justified in attacking Iran.
From your remarks above, I assume you do not object to my wording in Statement No 5 if “may or may not” is replaced by “may”......I have no objection to this.
6. An Israeli attack may kill any number of innocents, perhaps in the millions.
yes, it may kill 2 it may kill 100,000...do some research before asking
Again, from your comment, I understand that you do not object to Statement No 6
7. An Israeli attack, even if successful, may only put back Iran’s nuclear development by a couple of years. or it may stop it all together?......again i nor you can read the future, so how is it relevant to anything.....
Or thirdly, it may not delay it at all.....If you can accept that then Statement 7 becomes:
7. The outcome of an Israeli attack on Iran is unknown.
10. An Israeli attack and the Iranian response could lead to a wider Middle East war which would benefit no one but Al Qaida. or maybe it would benefit israel, kuwait, saudi arabia, the Palestinians, Egypt...as the iranian response was all thwarted by israel
Now here I have difficulty accepting your proposed additions...Please explain by what means you think Israel might thwart an Iranian response which may involve conventional surface-to-surface missiles and air/sea attacks on Saudi Arabia some 1,000km from the Israel?
11. Given time, Iran’s opposition may topple the present regime. An Israeli attack would cripple any Iranian opposition to the Ayatollahs. ...that iranian spring?...did you miss it? it didn't work out too well did it
You obviously do not think Statement 11 is a relevant factor...OK, I agree No 11 should be deleted..
Pelsar’s proposed additional statements
12. iran with nuclear missiles would lead to a nuclear arms race with saudi arabia and kuwait, iraq, etc getting involved
If you are willing to replace “would” with “might”, I am happy to accept your proposal as Statement No. 12
13. Israel blows up iranian nuclear facilities, saudi arabia, europe, egypt, jordan, all thank israel quietly for doing what had to be done, and they put the sanctions on with teeth, iran, stops the nuclear program. The arab countries realize that israel is in fact their ally, put pressure on the Palestinians that enough is enough, and a real arrangement is made with the Palestinians and a new era of peaceful coexistence begins....
Again if you are prepared state this “might” happen I will be happy to accept your word as Statement No 13.......However, if you are going to include such remote possibilities, I need to add a similar remote possibility as Statement No 14.
14. Iran may hve already developed and weaponised several nuclear war-heads with the help of the North Koreans...The Iranian response to an Israeli attack could be a multiple launch of all its missiles to swamp the Israel defences resulting in some getting through including perhaps a 100kiloton warhead on Tel Aviv.
You appeared to have made no comment to my Statements 2, 3, 4, 8 & 9. Can I therefore take it that once you have clarified why you object to Statement No 10, accepted the changed wording in No. 7, and included the word “might” in Nos 12 & 13, we can consider this extended list of statements as an agreed basis for deciding whether Israel is justified in attacking Iran?
......................
my knowledge base is probably quite a bit larger than yours, not only do get to hear what halutz and gabi have to say, i get to hear live the opposing views while they argue it out. I think its safe to say, that kind of knowledge you don't have.
I was not belittling your knowledge base, you were the one that said:
if you want to know what are my sources?....they're all around be they talk shows, interview, internet, radio, personal experiences, history
Such sources are just tittle-tattle and I was amazed that you made such a claim....Now you admit that you do listen to the views of experts after all.....Are you suffering from schizophrenia?......Why say one thing and mean another?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)radio, internet, talk shows, interviews....as i wrote thats where I learn about the different opinions..but no i generally don't give much credit to "experts". I listen to many people, the lowly private and the "big general".... This is a judgement call, and i don't believe there are any experts at reading the future..your so called "authorities' have been wrong enough times to make the word useless in my opinion.
(I'm assuming its technically possible in all of this)
____
in terms of the scenarios...there are as many as there are politicians. The point is Iran is not telling what they are going to do and the results of any israeli attack are ambigious.
simple question for you: under what circumstances if any, would you not object to an israeli attack on the nuclear facilities....
kayecy
(1,417 posts)The point is Iran is not telling what they are going to do (though its rather obvious) and the results of any israeli attack are ambigious
Well at least that is one statement we can agree on:
a) Iran is not telling what they are going to do and the results of any Israeli attack are ambigious.
I think we can agree two further statements:
b)We cannot be sure that any Israeli lives will be lost as a result of a decision not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
c) We can be fairly sure that as a result of an Israeli attack, many lives will be lost....Iranian lives from the attacks themselves and Israeli lives from retaliatory missiles launched from Iran and Lebanon.
If you accept these statements, how do you justify an Israeli attack?
simple question for you: under what circumstances if any, would you not object to an israeli attack on the nuclear facilities....
I would not object to Israel launching some form of defensive/retaliatory attack on Iran....Israel, like any other state, including Iran has a right to self-defence under International Law.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 03:36 AM - Edit history (1)
I would not object to Israel launching some form of defensive/retaliatory attack on Iran....Israel, like any other state, including Iran has a right to self-defence under International Law.that mantra used constantly by so many has ZERO credibility when i ask to apply it (by just about everybody here).
my question was clear and specific: Underwhat circumstances...note the word circumstances. Make up any you want if there are, for an israeli attack on irans nuclear facitiies or beyond that....
__________
what you doing with your statements, is constant. You simply ignore what an attack on israel means.
you tell me what you believe would happen to israel if there was a nuclear attack on the country and compare that to an israeli attack on Irans nuclear facilities.
I'll help: devastation of whole country vs limited destruction of limited military areas of large country that does not in fact affect the country as a whole
they are not the samething are they?
(btw, you might save sometime by doing some real research-your own, such as maps and measurements and look at just where Irans nuclear facilities actually are in proximity to the populations-it will affect your "numbers of people killed", and don't go all hysterical on radiation either-do some real research.....
______
If you accept these statements, how do you justify an Israeli attack?
i thought you claimed you can't read the future...you wrote it down twice that you can't...
and then you go again and claim indirectly that iran is probably not going to attack israel.
since your obviously know something about gambling...whats the risk ratio? what is the chances of iran attacking israel directly or indirectly? 10%, 30% 70%? and are you rich, since clearly you know something i don't about gambling.
(may i suggest you claim, that you can't answer such a question, because you don't really know, because i will make some snide remark about what mathematical formula you used to come up with that particular percentage....and other additional remarks)
I suppose you can claim one of your "authorities" made that claim, but that actually means little since i can never know how many times they were right in the past of their future predictions. I can give you a long list of future predictions that went wrong and only a few that prevented specific future events (since if it didn't happen, we can never know what would have been).
and just for fun: are you claiming its morally the samething?
israel attacking irons nuclear facilities to prevent a possible attack on itself
vs iran attacking israels population centers to destroy the "zionist regime"
kayecy
(1,417 posts)my question was clear and specific: Underwhat circumstances...note the word circumstances. Make up any you want if there are, for an israeli attack on irans nuclear facitiies or beyond that....
My answer was also clear......I would only support an Israeli defensive/retaliatory strike.....If you want me to identify a specific circumstance, then assume an Israeli defensive attack on Iran following an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel.
Over to you.
.............................
I'll help: devastation of whole country vs limited destruction of limited military areas of large country that does not in fact affect the country as a whole ...they are not the samething are they?
They are not the same thing...Iran has no capability to devastate Israel.....Israel has such a capability and a facility to kill Iranians and destroy nuclear facilities NOW...Israel is likely to use this capability in the next few months.
There is no comparison.
....................
If you accept these statements, how do you justify an Israeli attack?
I asked a simple question and what do I get in response...A tirade about reading the future, percentages and gambling......Just answer the question in simple English....How do you justify an Israel attack?......We have discussed all the relevant points, just assemble them and show how any sane person can think an attack is morally justified.
......................
(may i suggest you claim, that you can't answer such a question, because you don't really know, because i will make some snide remark about what mathematical formula you used to come up with that particular percentage....and other additional remarks)
What on earth are you going on about?.....What claim?.....Can’t answer what question?......What percentage have I come up with?
I suggest you calm down and try asking your question again – If in fact you are asking one.
..........................
I suppose you can claim one of your "authorities" made that claim
Trying to understanding what you are getting at is hard enough without you “supposing” I am making a claim when I am not.
........................
and just for fun: are you claiming its morally the samething?
israel attacking irons nuclear facilities to prevent a possible attack on itself
vs iran attacking israels population centers to destroy the "zionist regime"
Here we go again.....Israel is about to attack Iran. Such an attack is illegal and immoral.
Iran has no capability of attacking Israel in the near future....Hitler claimed he was attacking the USSR to stop the USSR attacking Germany at some point in the future.....If Hitler genuinely believed that, was he acting morally in protecting German population centres from devastation by the USSR?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:20 PM - Edit history (2)
If iran strikes first (as far as i understand all of your experts keep changing their guesses on what iran has, when they have it and where it is.....Hence for all we know they have or will have next week a bomb (the history of "authorities being publicly surprised by those who have the bombs is very high, if you did some research you would have known this)
why would israel strike back? an iranian attack would destroy Tel Aviv and pretty much render the country so badly wounded, that perhaps the iranians will let hizballa, syrian egypt, and the Palestinians finish off the country, keeping the armys hands pretty full.
what should israel bomb? tehran?
___________
They are not the same thing...Iran has no capability to devastate Israel.....Israel has such a capability and a facility to kill Iranians and destroy nuclear facilities NOW...Israel is likely to use this capability in the next few months.
I though you said you can't predict the future?
...this "next few months prediction..which one of your authorities gave it to you (i know you didn't think it by yourself....)...spill whats the name(s)?
did you miss the part where israel is talking about destroying just the nuclear facilities whereas iran wants to destroy the whole country? Do you see no difference?
more interesting: what if the iranian missiles are blown up en route to israel....and israel and the US publishes it-would you believe it? and then can israel attack?
_____
as far as your morality goes:
..Israel is about to attack Iran. Such an attack is illegal and immoral.
your version of morality, the one that would let your own children die first before your eyes, if it mean risking someone else's life, means you clearly live on a different planet. That kind of morality for jews, that actually saw their own children die, torn away from them making impossible choices of which of their own children will live and which won't (sophies choice) doesn't exist with us....that was immoral.....your kind of morality you might be able to sell to a few aging hippies living in the street, but not to us. Our relatives actually had to live it....and they taught us not to take threats lightly as they did and that too was immoral.
Its you who have the immoral viewpoint, the one that says, "you can threaten me all you like and I will do nothing, and only when you actually attack me, and only if you don't succeed, can i fight back. if you do succeed, and I'm dead, at least i chose the more "moral" route....and you let the immoral one, do it to someone else and someone else and someone else...
basically the reason your viewpoint is immoral, is that you are willing to accommodate people/societies/ that threaten others....which is why we have the hitlers, the pot pols, the stalins, the nassars, khommenis, the talibans etc (to generalize broadly)...and they kill millions upon millions upon millions and its your morality that just sits and lets them
the bottom line here, is that iran has been threatening to destroy israel and is attempting to produce nuclear bombs...in my book, thats also immoral.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)more interesting: what if the iranian missiles are blown up en route to israel....and israel and the US publishes it-would you believe it? and then can israel attack?
Yes and yes
.......................
your version of morality, the one that would let your own children die first before your eyes, if it mean risking someone else's life, means you clearly live on a different planet.
So what is your idea of International Law?....That state A has a right to attack state B if it merely believes that one day state B might attack it?......Perhaps you think International Law is what Israel says it is and other states don’t have the same rights as Israel?
..........................
1. Its you who have the immoral viewpoint, the one that says, "you can threaten me all you like and I will do nothing,
Wrong...I will do everything short of a military attack.
........................
2. and only when you actually attack me, and only if you don't succeed, can i fight back.
Wrong....You attack me and I will immediately respond.
.........................
3. if you do succeed, and I'm dead, at least i chose the more "moral" route....and you let the immoral one, do it to someone else and someone else and someone else...
History proves you wrong......The allies, in spite of taking the moral position, did eventually win over Hitler.
Why do you persist in deliberately misunderstanding me?
...........................
I believe I have answered all your questions to the best of my ability. Could you please extend the same courtesy to me?
1. How do you justify an Israel attack?......We have discussed all the relevant points, just assemble them and show how any sane person can think an attack is morally justified.
2. Iran has no capability of attacking Israel in the near future....Hitler claimed he was attacking the USSR to stop the USSR attacking Germany at some point in the future.....If Hitler genuinely believed that, was he acting morally in protecting German population centres from devastation by the USSR?
.
shira
(30,109 posts)...as an all out declaration of war vs. Iran?
Israel took out Iraq and Syria's nuclear capabilities. Those 'attacks' were morally justified to any sane, rational person. No civilian casualties. No declarations of war.
You're disingenuously equating such an attack to Iran's deliberate attempts to target and kill Israeli civilians. You're pretending they're the same.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:14 AM - Edit history (7)
3. if you do succeed, and I'm dead, at least i chose the more "moral" route....and you let the immoral one, do it to someone else and someone else and someone else...History proves you wrong......The allies, in spite of taking the moral position, did eventually win over Hitler.
yes and the cost was a devastating 60 million dead, not to mention the USSRs additional 20 million in their own camps post WWII and enslavement of Eastern Europe....gotta love your version of morality....
whereas had the west attacked Germany earlier, there might have been a chance for less devastation. It was "morality" like yours that kept the US military so weak after WWI, that they could do little to help when Germany started on their rampage... (btw, you sound like Ron Paul...far left meets far right)
but you believe (as i understand) that the 60 million dead, was acceptable as the path was the moral one....i believe had the allies not held your kind of morality, but listened to hitler, saw what he was doing, and woke up, millions less would have been killed, (based on "authorities"
so, if i understand your "morality", when tribes go on the rampage such as in Uganda, or for that matter, when Syria defends its govt against the "home grown terrorists" that want to destroy their govt. .... basically its none of any countries business what goes on within the borders of another country.It would be immoral to act, as well as illegal, according to the UN Charter.
___
2.and only when you actually attack me, and only if you don't succeed, can i fight back.
Wrong....You attack me and I will immediately respond.
i am right...If i threaten you, load my gun, point it at your head, you will do nothing violent, if i pull the trigger (i.e. the first attack) you will be dead and can do nothing.
_____
1. How do you justify an Israel attack?......We have discussed all the relevant points, just assemble them and show how any sane person can think an attack is morally justified.
because no sane person can claim that he can read the future, you've actually admitted it. (though you still claim you can) Your "authorities" have all been wrong before about the production of WMD no knowledgable person would believe they "know this time". Any attack on the nuclear facilities will not cause millions of dead, whereas a successful attack on israel as per their threats, will, as well as destruction of a country.
you will note that i am leaving out post attack events from either israel or iran since fantasying about either has about as much substance as the fantasies about the "war to end all wars" or the revolutionaries of Russia in 1917 and their fantasies about the future (i could go on...) so spare me your visions of the future, they hold no water.
2. Iran has no capability of attacking Israel in the near future....Hitler claimed he was attacking the USSR to stop the USSR attacking Germany at some point in the future.....If Hitler genuinely believed that, was he acting morally in protecting German population centres from devastation by the USS
every country that attacks somebody else believes they are doing the 'moral' thing and hitler had already established via written word and actions, that he in fact did mean what he wrote (only the chamberlins of the world were the immoral ones and illiterate as well).
and i don't believe in fairy tales or people who claim they can read the future.....You have not been able to prove what capability Iran has, i'm still waiting on that actual proof, not someones opinion or some organizations opinion that has been proven to have be wrong in the past (how many "new" discoveries" have been made about Iran's nuclear facilities over the years after the proclamations of what they can do?).
just admit that you really don't have any proof about what iran is capable of, its just people guessing...and leave it at that.
__________
a word about this International law that is always being brought up...I"m alway amused at it. In order to get a better understanding, how was it legal for NATO to kill Libyan civilians for 6 months? but not kill/protect the Sudanese?
Was it legal for the US to bomb Bosnia? Afghanistan? why is germany in Afghanistan? what did the afghans ever do to germany?
Im sure you know the UN Charter.....so is international law nothing more than politics masquerading as 'law"?
The Charter specifically prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments.
All national and international laws forbid the killing of non-combatants (i.e. arguably all Afghanis)
In 17 December 1984 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution "that all States take no actions aimed at military intervention and occupation, forcible change in or undermining of the socio-political system of States, destabilization and overthrow of the their Governments and, in particular, initiate no military action to that end under any pretext whatsoever and cease forthwith any such action already in progress."
"The Charter is based on the belief that international law should not be enforced at the expense of international peace."
2)
Neither can international law be enforced by the commission of more crimes.
Article 52 of the UN Charter restricts regional agencies, including NATO, to activities consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. So the NATO resolutions cannot override the provision of the UN Charter.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)whereas had the west/russia attacked Germany earlier, there might have been a chance for less devastation
Or there “might” have been even more devastation.......All that we actually know is that Hitler was defeated...Your “might” comment is pure speculation.
...................
i am right...If i threaten you, load my gun, point it at your head, you will do nothing violent, if i pull the trigger (i.e. the first attack) you will be dead and can do nothing
Netanyahu, judging by his speeches, does not believe that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel at the present time.....Israel, on the other hand does have such a capability and is threatening an attack on Iran....Israel, to use your own words, is....... loading its gun, pointing it at Iran’s head.
Applying your moral values, Iran now has every right to launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel.....Have I understood you correctly?.....Do you believe Iran has that right?
........................
Any attack on the nuclear facilities will not cause millions of dead,Careful.....You stated earlier that you couldn’t read the future....Have you changed your mind again?
.....................
every country that attacks somebody else believes they are doing the 'moral' thing.Dodging the question again by stating the obvious?.......I asked you whether in your opinion Hitler was doing the moral thing in attacking the USSR...... not whether Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.
Let me ask you again.......Assuming Hitler genuinely believed the USSR was building its military strength in order to attack Germany at some time in the future, was Hitler’s pre-emptive attack on the USSR moral?.....In your opinion.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)yes it is and given that i can't go back in time, change the history its pure speculation......just as all of your predictions are
i don't put dictatorships on the same moral plane as democracies (i believe you do). In fact all dictatorships in my mind should be threatened with removal from the very day the dictator takes power. Dictatorships by their very existence are immoral and must be removed...one way or another.
Hitler as a dictator had no moral right to do anything but resign. Iran as a theocratic dictatorship has no moral right to exist, let alone produce nuclear weapons. I shall repeat, all dictatorships should be constantly threatened and restricted, they have no moral grounds to exist. Hence they have no moral grounds to attack anybody for any reason.
clear enough?
so you trust Netanyahu?
Netanyahu, judging by his speeches, does not believe that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel at the present time
maybe he's just toying with the Iranians, and the US.....i believe last year the threat was "imminent."
Your authorities at work: wasn't the UN publishing news reports for years how Iran had no intention of working on nuclear weapons and then all of sudden decides that oops they were:
November 2011: The IAEA claims for the first time that Iran is has worked on weapons-related activities for years, publishing detailed information based on more than 1,000 pages of design information that is corroborated, it says, by data from 10 member states and its own investigation and interviews.
see how that works?....the authorities/politicians misleading the public for years.....
so in case you missed it, i claim no special knowledge on what iran has or doesn't have, i do know they iran has threatened and claimed that israel must be removed and is actively aiding hizballa and hamas in their own goals, which are similar.They are all ready attacking israel indirectly, a nuclear strike from iran is simply more direct, but perhaps they will use Hizballa for that...., hence the metaphor with the gun is not applicable.
____
now your turn.....about Libya, Sudan, Syria, interfere? kill civilians, help develop a new dictatorship or let them kill their own within their own borders because the dictators "own" their own people as per the UN charter (and your own moral stance)
kayecy
(1,417 posts)ah...so you don't like it when I speculate, but you can predict?....... and given that i can't go back in time, change the history its pure speculation......just as all of your predictions are
It is not a question of like or dislike, merely that historical speculation is a waste of time......I only speculate on the future......All prediction of the future is speculation, that is why any state proposing to go to war must be particularly careful to weigh all the risks....Hitler apparently didn’t......You seem confident that the G.O.I. has done so.
..................................
In fact all dictatorships in my mind should be threatened with removal from the very day the dictator takes power. Dictatorships by their very existence are immoral and must be removed...one way or another. ....clear enough?
Not really clear enough, I’m afraid, can I ask you for further clarification?........In the 1950s, was Israel being moral when Mossad, helped establish the Shah's secret police, SAVAK. in order to keep the dictator in power?
Was Israel being moral when, in 1977, it arranged a $1 billion arms-for-oil deal around Operation Flower, a joint Israeli-Iranian project to build a nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile?
Was Israel being moral when, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one-third of Israel's total arms sales of $1.2 billion in 1980 went to the Argentinian and El Salvadorian dictatorships?
Are we in agreement that Israel in the past has immorally supported dictatorships?
...............................
now your turn.....about Libya, Sudan, Syria, interfere? kill civilians, help develop a new dictatorship or let them kill their own within their own borders because the dictators "own" their own people as per the UN charter (and your own moral stance)
I am not sure what your question has to do with Iran but I am willing to humour you.
The situations in the states you have listed are difficult.....I don’t like military intervention.....I don't like dictatorships and I certainly don’t like killing innocent people.....So, I would expect my government to use the best intelligence available and then come to a view whether, in the foreseeable future, doing nothing would result in fewer or more suffering, injuries and deaths than military intervention.
Now, what is your answer to the above question?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:39 AM - Edit history (7)
You made a short list of israel working with or affecting dictatorships, i'm not impressed, nor do i find a moral problem with it. Whereas dictatorships are all illegal and as i pointed out, have no right to defend themselves, the reality is that a countries self interest will require us working with them or with other countries to effect events in order to insure our own survival as well as others. Those actions will not all be "morally pure", nor do i expect israel to claim such.
I have a hierarchy of values and though there will be lines that must not be crossed, selling arms to dictators, with its economic independence and connections that it creates, that makes israel stronger is a necessary evil.
ALL Liberal societies and people engage in illiberal (a fancy liberal word for activities that negate liberal ethics) activities to insure their own survival and security, israel is nothing special in that aspect and one shouldn't expect israel to be different. It goes back to defending your own kids at the expense of the "other."
_____
.So, I would expect my government to use the best intelligence available and then come to a view whether, in the foreseeable future, doing nothing would result in fewer or more suffering, injuries and deaths than military intervention.
your "answer" was nothing but a bunch of PC BS based on some ability to predict the future....and i believe you've admitted that you can't (and i would guess that neither can this entity called a "govt" . so i'll make it simpler
do you believe dictatorships should have a right to defend themselves? and in fact are legal entities?
and to clarify my question: do dictatorships have the right to kill their own citizens to protect their own governing style without outside interference, since they are not threatening any other country?
______
as far as speculating on the future....its just a fancy word for guessing. The only thing i'm confident about is that nobody has any real idea what will happen, not in the short term and not in the long term, and anybody who can actually make any kind of concrete claim of what will happen, is just talking BS....countries may prepare for scenarios, knowing full well that, they are only preparing for "something" that might be similar, and that is for a short time only and that is as good as its gets.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Whereas dictatorships are all illegal and as i pointed out, have no right to defend themselves,
Which authority are you quoting?......Who says Israel has a right to defend itself but dictatorships do not have the same right?.....You state that “dictatorships are all illegal”......Whose law says they are illegal?
I suggest you were merely expressing your own opinion without any support whatsoever.
..................
I have a hierarchy of values and though there will be lines that must not be crossed, selling arms to dictators, with its economic independence and connections that it creates
Ah...A hierarchy of values......How convenient!......Let me remind you of what you stated previously:
“Dictatorships by their very existence are immoral and must be removed...one way or another.”
No ifs or buts there, but now it seems that your moral values are more flexible....They can be adjusted depending on the economic advantage to Israel of the particular immoral dictatorship!
.................
do you believe dictatorships should have a right to defend themselves? and in fact are legal entities?
If, like Israel, authoritarian States have signed the UN Charter, then they have a right to defend themselves and are as much a legal entity as is Israel.
and to clarify my question: do dictatorships have the right to kill their own citizens without outside interference, since they are not threatening anybody else?
No.
...................
as far as speculating on the future....its just a fancy word for guessing. The only thing i'm confident about is that nobody has any real idea what will happen, not in the short term and not in the long term
Exactly......So why is Israel proposing to attack Iran?......Because it “guesses” something might happen in the future?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 04:17 AM - Edit history (1)
Exactly......So why is Israel proposing to attack Iran?......Because it “guesses” something might happen in the future?its called an "educated guess"...thats one step up on the guessing scale
i guess you not so well informed, or don't want to be, or your "authorities" haven't explained themselves.
1) iran has been supplying weapons to both hizballa and hamas that have been used in the past and present to attack israel.
2)iranian govt officials have made it clear they want to remove israel.
3) they are playing games (hide and seek) with the the UN as far as their nuclear program goes.....
4) Iran has ballistic missiles
5) iran supplies missiles to entities that have used them to attack israel (just making sure you understand)
6) October 1973....the "educated guess" was wrong and it cost israel 3000+ lives. Plus the US pressured israel NOT to strike first....i suppose you believe that was a wise decision, even though it may have ended the war sooner, given the advantages of the first strike (am i right or wrong that you believe israel shouldn't have attacked first before the arab armies did in 1973 now that we know they were in fact going to attack and did?)
hence, its a reasonable guess to assume that they will continue to train and attack israel via their proxies and perhaps one day skip the use of proxies and attack directly.
its still just a guess, but an educated guess..are they are serious about their threats?...threats to israel are taken seriously. In fact given the short history of past attempts to destroy israel, disrupt life in israel, its very reasonable to assume the iranians are serious...why not? the egyptians were, the jordanians and syrians were...
though its preferable to keep ones head in the sand and pretend threats on israel are don't really mean anything, history has shown the opposite.....and history does have some meaning.
do you believe the Iranian govt is just 'kidding" if so, on what basis?
______
Whereas dictatorships are all illegal and as i pointed out, have no right to defend themselves,
Which authority are you quoting?.
jesus, i thought i made it clear, i don't need "authorities" to have an opinion or to tell me what my moral and ethical values are. I hardly need "support" to have a moral and ethical stand..and i have no idea why you need someone to tell you how to think or what to believe.
________
Ah...A hierarchy of values......How convenient!......Let me remind you of what you stated previously:
“Dictatorships by their very existence are immoral and must be removed...one way or another.”
hmm, i see you have a problem with having a moral standard and applying it, so i shall explain:
western liberal democracies exist on a moral plan, dictatorships don't. Western liberal democracies will have to employ less than ethical methods, as do people, to be secure and survive, that is the reality of the world. (and if you want to know what the "authorities believe, you will find that they infact agree with me-so i guess that means in "your world of authorities, that gives me "support."
Dictatorships that by their very nature are immoral, do not have such options and yes that is my own opinion, just as i have my own opinion about iran, based on "radio, TV, interviews, internet and other such sources that you mock.
Do you believe dictatorships are moral entities (no asking authorities, this is for your own opinion....)
______
wow ...just wow
If, like Israel, authoritarian States have signed the UN Charter, then they have a right to defend themselves and are as much a legal entity as is Israel.
so by signing a piece of paper, irreguardless of what they actual do, means they are legal? The UN charter is based on western civil right values, many many counties ignore the actual provisions, but you believe, that because they signed it, that gives them the rights of a western democracy, even though within their own country that have a set of moral values that negate everything the UN stands for.
i've come across this a lot.....where pieces of paper, are deemed more real than actual events.
and why don't dictatorships have the right to "kill their own." According to the UN charter no state may interfere with another, which means by defacto that get to "kill their own"
you disagree with that UN provision of non interference? if so how?
didn't the US and friends attack iraq with the UN blessing? didn't NATO attack Libya for 6 months to destroy a legal state? the US attacking afganistan was not authorized by the UN, syria? Remember Rwanda and the killing there? how about Sudan. Russia attacking Chechniya, Georgia?
i'm very confused how this system of yours works...its seems the rules of interference in another country is hardly based on some kind of law....is it?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Thank you for supplying your reasons why Israel is justified in attacking Iran....Let us examine each of your reasons and compare it with Iran’s justification for perhaps attacking Israel one day in the future:
1) iran has been supplying weapons to both hizballa and hamas that have been used in the past and present to attack israel
The US has been supplying cluster weapons to Israel which have been used in Shia civilian areas in Lebanon....The US has also been supplying GBU-28 bunker busters which Israel’s only application for is to bomb Iran.
2)iranian govt officials have made it clear they want to remove israel
Israel’s PM has made it clear that Israel will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
3) they are playing games (hide and seek) with the the UN as far as their nuclear program goes.....
Israel has been playing games with its “nuclear ambiguity” policy.....It has already started killing Iranian scientists and sabotaging Iranian industry through cyber warfare.
4) Iran has ballistic missiles
Israel has nuclear ballistic missiles, an ABM system and an air force capable of bombing Iran...Iran has no nuclear warheads, no ABM systems and no capability of bombing Israel.
5) iran supplies missiles to entities that have used them to attack israel (just making sure you understand)
Israel supplies weapons to the Peshmurgah terrorists so that they can attack Iran.
Israel has supplied aircraft, missiles, mortars and small-arms to some of the world’s worst dictators so that these dictators can suppress their own people.
6) October 1973....the "educated guess" was wrong and it cost israel 3000+ lives. Plus the US pressured israel NOT to strike first....
A little history for you....”At a meeting with Golda Meir and several of her senior advisers on the morning of October 3rd – just after her return from Vienna – Dayan said that recent Egyptian and Syrian military concentrations on the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights were “unusual”. But there was no sense at the meeting that war was imminent or in prospect.” See...."Israel A History", Gilbert, p 427
Where on earth did you get this nonsense about the US pressurising Israel Not to strike first?
............................
jesus, i thought i made it clear, i don't need "authorities" to have an opinion or to tell me what my moral and ethical values are. I hardly need "support" to have a moral and ethical stand..and i have no idea why you need someone to tell you how to think or what to believe.
In other words, the crap that you wrote about dictatorships having no right to defend themselves was just your own idiosyncratic opinion....Fine......Now tell me what you meant by “dictatorships are all illegal”......Whose law says they are illegal?.......Or is this "illegal" business just another of your uninformed opinions?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)it appears you, like so many others, you need someone to tell you what is right and what is wrong...what to think and what not to...i will listen but no one, be they an "authority" or a kid will i let have that right
clearly we have a strong disagreement on a very fundamental philosophy who is responsible for our own opinions and morals.
____
but you make the basic attempt at "moral equiivaleny" as an attempt to equate irans stance with israel. I see this a lot around here: (you shouldn't really listen to some "authorities" sometimes they are wrong).
Basically your equating the destruction of physical elements (nuclear factories) with the destruction of a state or near destruction. Israels stance is to destroy buildings with as little loss of life as possible, Irans stance is exactly the opposite to destroy a country and with it the zionists.
2)iranian govt officials have made it clear they want to remove israel
Israel’s PM has made it clear that Israel will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
perhaps your "authorities" believe that is a moral stance, I don't believe destroying some buildings is the same moral plane as the destruction of a state
apparently you do.....that is the crucial element in your complete argument that you have yet to address.
__________________________
In other words, the crap that you wrote about dictatorships having no right to defend themselves was just your own idiosyncratic opinion..........Whose law says they are illegal?.......Or is this "illegal" business just another of your uninformed opinions?
its just based on my own moral stance. No government that does not allow its citizens an ability to freely change the governing "authorties", to have freedom of speech simply has no right to govern. No one told me that, thats my belief as a liberal.
_________________________
i asked you if you believe dictatorships are moral entities....the question still stands.
_____
and the 73 war?...
Morning of Yom Kippur War:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3965041,00.htm
Cabinet rejects call for preemptive strike
Six hours before war breaks out, Golda convenes cabinet for consultation. IDF chief Dado says preemptive strike would give Israel 'huge advantage and save many lives,' but prime minister and Dayan reject idea: 'It's tempting, but world will portray us as the aggressors.' ....We still have four hours for dialogue with the Americans. (other interviews etc made it clear what the american opinion was.....no attack)
Since 73, the Israeli public has been receiving tons of information and interviews from the front and from the archives....The front line soldiers remain bitter to this day of the political sacrifice made.
__
well? whats your opinion, should israel have struck first since the intel was all there about the attack....or should they have taken additional losses for the sake of "political expediency?"
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Pelsar
of course its my own "idiosyncratic opinion".....its my ethics and my morals...
I’m glad you admit that, but please don’t quote your own opinions as if they were some sort of authority or say dictatorships are illegal, when what you really mean is that in your opinion they ought to be made illegal.
…………………….
Basically your equating the destruction of physical elements (nuclear factories) with the destruction of a state or near destruction. Israels stance is to destroy buildings with as little loss of life as possible, Irans stance is exactly the opposite to destroy a country and with it the zionists
You are making the same assumptions that Hitler made…ie that an attack on the USSR would be over in a matter of months and would not end with massive human sacrifice on both side……It seems inconceivable to you that Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead to a general war with both Israel and Iran/Hezbollah hurling missiles at each other…..Do you think if Israel saw its cities being destroyed one-by-one it wouldn’t use its nuclear arsenal to retaliate?
……………….
i asked you if you believe dictatorships are moral entities....the question still stands.
You know I NEVER avoid answering your questions...it is just that sometimes you over-load me with them!....Now, I am not sure what you mean by a “moral entity”… A dictatorship is obviously not the same as a democracy, but whether a dictator rules his people in a moral way depends on the dictator….In general of course, they do not.
A question on the same subject for you:
Do you believe that a state occupying territory against the residents’ will can be a moral entity?
……………..
Cabinet rejects call for preemptive strike
Six hours before war breaks out, Golda convenes cabinet for consultation. IDF chief Dado says preemptive strike would give Israel 'huge advantage and save many lives,' but prime minister and Dayan reject idea: 'It's tempting, but world will portray us as the aggressors.'
Interesting…….However, if you are right, why did the Golda and Dado leave a mere 436 IDF defenders along the Suez canal to face 80,000 Egyptian attackers.......I suggest that with six hours notice, Israel could have done much to alert its defences without carrying out an immoral pre-emptive strike……Why didn’t it?
well? whats your opinion, should israel have struck first since the intel was all there about the attack....or should they have taken additional losses for the sake of "political expediency?"
Definitely it should not have struck first, but not for the sake of "political expediency".....Israel should not have struck first because it claims to be a moral democraccy…....Pre-emptive attacks should not be acceptable in any democracy….Alerting your forces, strengthening your defences, even issuing a warning to your enemy are all acceptable moral alternatives ….Any state that attacks another simply because it thinks the other state might attack it one day, is the aggressor state and should be condemned by everyone….In the case of the 1973 war, Israel was already in an aggressive position as it was occupying the whole of Egyptian Sinai.
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and when you use "authorities" would you mind giving me their names and resumes so that we can check out their own history and find out if actually they do know what their talking about? and how they got the title....anonymous "authorities" or those like you've already shown (dayan and halutz) just show how pathetic the concept of 'authorities actually is." Not to mention the "authorities who said there was wmd in iraq...theres a long long long list of "authorities making wrong predictions.
It seems inconceivable to you that Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead to a general war with both Israel and Iran/Hezbollah hurling missiles at each other…
i thought you (and your authorities) agreed that that they can't read the future, you keep bringing it up that you can. If you can't then stop predicting if you've changed your mind that just tell me.
on the contrary its very conceivable....i'm open to all options, even that one that says we want Iran to develop nuclear weapons (this came as a conclusion from talking-to my brother). This will scare the shit out of saudi arabia as well as europe since only israel has a working anti ballistic system in the area to protect both from the iranians should "allah" tell them to shoot. The political shift will cause them to tell the Palestinians that the game is over and they should take what they can get now, because they all need israel far more than they do the Palestinians....and peace then breaks out in the area (ok rather simplistic, but another variation).
_
Dictatorships: its simple, do you believe that as governing system they are morally ethical. Not how they govern, just their very existence as a governing system.
Occupations are not moral, start with that. The state also has a moral obligation to protect first and foremost its own citizens over the "other". Whereas this is not the case of China occupying tibet, its is easy to argue that if israel withdraws today from the west bank it citizens will no longer be secure. Hence in the argument of what is ethical, security comes first, the occupation is "less moral" The state has a obligation not to put its citizens in a position of moral danger when possible, it can be argued that israel failed when it left gaza by putting over a million of its citizen under missile attacks from gaza a few weeks ago.
in 67 the front line soldiers were alerted, there was just "nobody there" the since it was the holiday getting the regulars back took more than 6 hrs before the attack, reserves require 72 hours to get prepared, which is what the preemptive strike was all about.
Pre-emptive attacks should not be acceptable in any democracy….Alerting your forces, strengthening your defences, even issuing a warning to your enemy are all acceptable moral alternatives
war is not a game....no one side will actually knows if any one soldier(s) action will turn the war around or what one generals decision based on wrong info will do and its not a matter of "being fair" A democracies highest morality is to defend itself and its citizens...and if a country even threatens to destroy another, its they who are immoral and any and all consequences are upon them, the threat is immoral.
More so there is also the moral imperative that those who are 'more moral"...have the moral imperative to live and survive to insure a better society.
if we let people like pot pol, stalin, hitler have their way the world will be a much worse place,and letting them have the initiative creates a world of far more death and destruction:
Hitler was the cause of over 60millon
stalin has at least 20 million
and on and on it goes. Giving those kind of people the initiative to start wars is far more immoral than pre-emptive strike from a democracy.
your morality while is "nice" creates far more violence then stopping the monsters before they get too much power and that is what is really immoral. Perhaps you like it because it makes for easy decisions......but its immoral because the outcome is much worse and its the outcome that is far more important than the process in international politics.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)and when you use "authorities" would you mind giving me their names and resumes so that we can check out their own history and find out if actually they do know what their talking about?
Have I been “using authorities”?........Can you identify which of my posts you are referring to?
on the contrary its very conceivable....
Can I be clear on this statement of yours... ...Are you agreeing that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could very conceivably lead to a general war?
...................................
Dictatorships: its simple, do you believe that as governing system they are morally ethical. Not how they govern, just their very existence as a governing system.
Dictatorship is not an ethical system of government.........I am not sure what you mean by the term “morally ethical”.....It seems to be tautological to me.
................
Hitler was the cause of over 60millon
stalin has at least 20 million
and on and on it goes. Giving those kind of people the initiative to start wars is far more immoral than pre-emptive strike from a democracy.
Would you consider that an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran to be moral no matter how many millions died as a result of the attack?
.....................
Occupations are not moral, start with that. The state also has a moral obligation to protect first and foremost its own citizens over the "other". Whereas this is not the case of China occupying tibet, its is easy to argue that if israel withdraws today from the west bank it citizens will no longer be secure. Hence in the argument of what is ethical, security comes first, the occupation is "less moral
In other words, you justify Israel’s immoral occupation of the West Bank on the grounds of “Israeli security”...A reasonable excuse for the first few years of the occupation, but after 45 years that excuse is sounding thread-bare....The main reason for the Israel’s continued occupation is to be able to use it as a bargaining chip to ensure Israel retains the settlement areas in any peace negotiations.....Has Israel shown any intention of ever being prepared to end its occupation and return to the Green Line?
And what about the settlements?...I am sure you consider those to be immoral too.....Do you claim Israeli’s building of settlements is also justified on the grounds of “Israeli security”?
.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)of course its conceivable...its just as conceivable that it wont and it will stop an iranian surprise attack on israel....
or do you once again claim you can read the future and you know that there will not be an iranian surprise attack?
seems you have a habit of slipping into that all of the time (pretending you can read the future....)
Have I been “using authorities”?........Can you identify which of my posts you are referring to?
147: time magazine: The defense official, pannetta, A senior IDF officer, to begin with. Not to mention your mentioned dayan and halutz......It should be clear by now that the two authorities you actually mentioned do not impress me and and have a poor record on strategic planning as well as reading the future, i can only assume your others are just as talented. Basically you have a belief first and then look to find 'authorities" to back you up...hardly am impressive system.
Dictatorship is not an ethical system of government.
yet you protect them, you agree that they are a legal form of government, so that in fact does give them the rights to handle their own internal affairs as they see fit (i.e. as per the syrian and iranian examples).
and you call that a moral position?
Would you consider that an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran to be moral no matter how many millions died as a result of the attack?
i would say if i new for certain, a 100% that 10 million would certainly die, that i would say its worth the gamble not to attack. If i knew for certain that 10 would die and that would be the end of the story than i would say "go". I don't have a magic number where there is a dividing line between the moral and immoral.
In other words, you justify Israel’s immoral occupation of the West Bank on the grounds of “Israeli security”...A reasonable excuse for the first few years of the occupation, .....Has Israel shown any intention of ever being prepared to end its occupation and return to the Green Line?
Gaza answers both of your questions: we now have a million citizens under the real threat of random rockets (see yesterdays attacks), so the security threat is real and is an almost daily affair and the ability to end the occupation has been shown to be possible.
are you justifying PA/hamas attempts at murder based on landownership?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)or do you once again claim you can read the future and you know that there will not be an iranian surprise attack? .....seems you have a habit of slipping into that all of the time (pretending you can read the future....)
You are becoming boring on this pet accusation of yours...What part of my last post are you accusing me of reading the future?....I try always to preface my “future” statements with “if”, “may”, “could” or some other conditional word....Let me spell it out for you again....I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO READ THE FUTURE.
....................................
My Question: Have I been “using authorities”?........Can you identify which of my posts you are referring to?
Your response: 147: time magazine: The defense official, pannetta, A senior IDF officer, to begin with.
I must apologise...I did quote such an authority in my post No 147......However, since this is post No 198 and you appear to have found no similar reference since 147, why bother to ask me now?
..................................
My statement: Dictatorship is not an ethical system of government.
Your respose: ....yet you protect them, you agree that they are a legal form of government,
That is a false accusation!...I do not protect dictatorships anymore than I protect murderers or racist groups.....I believe everyone and every state should be subject to the applicable law and not “pelsar’s law”.....Israeli vigilantism is plain anarchy.
..............................
My question:...Has Israel shown any intention of ever being prepared to end its occupation and return to the Green Line?
Your response:....Gaza answers both of your questions: we now have a million citizens under the real threat of random rockets (see yesterdays attacks), so the security threat is real and is an almost daily affair and the ability to end the occupation has been shown to be possible.
For someone who accepts that occupation is immoral you seem surprisingly sanguine about one of the longest military occupations in modern times...Israel is the de facto ruler of the West Bank but in spite of that you seem to think nothing short of everlasting occupation can improve the security situation......Israel never tried to change the Gazans’ hatred of Israel as it has that of Israeli-Arabs......I repeat my question:
“Why has Israel never tried to show good faith by publicly declaring that its long term objective is a full withdrawal to the Green-Line?”
If you think Israel is sincere in wanting to end the occupation, why has it not:
1. Stated openly that Israel’s long-term objective is to withdraw to the Green-Line?
2. Made offers conditional on improved security? (eg Stated openly that Israel will withdraw from its present positions in stages of say, 5km for each year that there are no Israelis killed by Palestinians, but for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, Israel will re-occupy 5km.)
3. Why hasn’t Israel taken over responsibility for education throughout the occupied areas and instituted the same system it has for educating Israeli-Arabs?.....Israel seems to have pacified Israeli-Arabs why hasn’t it tried to do the same in the West Bank?
You seem to have missed the most important question in my last post....I will repeat it for you:
And what about the settlements?...I am sure you consider those to be immoral too.....Do you claim Israeli’s building of settlements is also justified on the grounds of “Israeli security”?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Iran MAY be developing a very dangerous weapon. If Israel chooses to attack now it WILL certainly cause a great deal of casualties but it might also derail the development of this weapon. If Israel does nothing and Iran is NOT developing nukes then no one would be killed, our ideal scenario.
We don't know for certain if Iran is developing this weapon or not. But if they ARE building it, succeed, and then attack Israel, then the casualties would be exponentially greater than any of the prophylactic strikes Israel is now considering. The entire country may even be destroyed.
So is it ethical to condemn a finite (though not small), amount of people to certain death in the hopes of avoiding the possible deaths of many, many more people in the future?
Looking at it this way it seems obvious that Israel has a moral imperative to attack Iran in the hopes of derailing their nuke production.
Yes, there would be a definite cost of many lives immediately. But this scenario does not hold as a possibility the destruction of ALL Israeli lives, which is an unacceptable risk to allow, no matter how unsure we are of its likelihood. The deaths of 100,000 Iranians and Israelis would have tragic consequences, yes. But the destruction of Israel would have much farther reaching implications which would have a truly unknowable impact as the effects rippled out over centuries. And as elected democratic officials, Israel's government has an obligation to first and foremost ensure the viability of the state and the self-determination of the Jews at large. It is this Jewish sovereignty that ensures the security of the Jewish people over the long term.
The lives of individual Iranians and Israelis must come second compared to that... we must never risk sacrificing the whole to spare an individual.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Shaktimaan:
Iran MAY be developing a very dangerous weapon. If Israel chooses to attack now it WILL certainly cause a great deal of casualties but it might also derail the development of this weapon. If Israel does nothing and Iran is NOT developing nukes then no one would be killed, our ideal scenario.Agreed
................................
We don't know for certain if Iran is developing this weapon or not. But if they ARE building it, succeed, and then attack Israel, then the casualties would be exponentially greater than any of the prophylactic strikes Israel is now considering.... The entire country may even be destroyed
Unlikely....From what I read, even a few years hence Iran will have no capability to destroy the whole of Israel...A couple cities, possibly. (Israel and the US do have ABM systems you know!)
...........................
So is it ethical to condemn a finite (though not small), amount of people to certain death in the hopes of avoiding the possible deaths of many, many more people in the future?
No question as far as I am concerned...I would not support my government attacking another state, and probably killing innocent people for whatever reason...Killing a significant number of innocent people to save my own life, the life of my family or fellow citizens is totally immoral unless my state was under a clearly illegal and unjustified attack.....I take it you have no such moral scruples?
..........................
Looking at it this way it seems obvious that Israel has a moral imperative to attack Iran in the hopes of derailing their nuke production.
Now here is the nub of the matter...Let’s look at some facts:
1. It has been said that Hitler believed that the USSR was building up its military in order to carry out a surprise attack and destroy the Third Reich at some time in the future.....Hitler pre-empted such an attack by invading the USSR first...If he genuinely believed the USSR was developing such an attack capability, was he right to pre-empt the USSR?......Interestingly, Hitler, like Israel was convinced his pre-emptive attack would not have catastrophic consequences.
2. Britain & France did not attack Hitler’s Germany after Germany walked into Austria in 1938......Was that a moral thing to have done?
3. Israel has signed the UN Charter....Article 2.4 of the Charter states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Without a UN resolution authorizing Israel to attack Iran, Israel would be in breach of its international obligations.
4. If all states have equal rights, and Israel claims it has a right to attack Iran because it thinks Iran may attack it at some point in the future, then the result will be a complete breakdown of all that the civilised world has worked for since 1945.....If Israel’s claim is to be supported, then Iran at this moment has a much greater right to attack Israel because Israel has openly discussed the possibilities of attacking Iran and has even declared that Iran’s possession of a capability to build nuclear weapons (Note: A capability, not a decision to build.) will result in an Israeli attack.
5. There is, as you say, a high probability that many people will die in an Israeli attack...There is only a low-to-medium probability that any such attack will indefinitely delay Iran’s nuclear development. Furthermore, there is a real possibility that a regional war could be triggered off by an Israeli attack, possibly resulting in the deaths of millions.
I rest my case against the morality of either Israel, Iran or any other state carrying out a pre-emptive attack.
.
shira
(30,109 posts)In your opinion, does Israel have a right to retaliate vs. Iran?
Not a full on invasion or war. Israel would take out a few military/terror installations in parts of Iran - giving the Ayatollahs a very clear message to fuck off. Very few, if any, civilian casualties.
Put simply, Iran is already attacking Israel.
What should Israel do about that? Anything at all?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Well, seeing as how you have never had to put your family at risk I'd say that it's obvious as to why there's not a moment of hesitation in your response... because it is hypothetical. Hopefully if this was a real situation you would give it more consideration than "No Question." But seeing as how that's unlikely to occur I propose a new scenario that's more relatable to your everyday life. Let's see how you do here.
Now the premise of your choice here is basically that all innocent people are equal and you would never see someone else's daughter put to death merely to save your own. (Unless forced by an illegal, unjustified attack, right?)
Well, you may not encounter war very often but I'm sure that you and your family get sick sometimes. I know this because everyone gets sick eventually. So here's my question... right now there is undoubtedly a young child in need of crucial, (and expensive) medical care. Do you usually spend your money healing children like this, (assuming that your own daughter is healthy for the moment), or do you instead spend the money on health insurance for your own family, (essentially condemning the cancer-stricken child to death?)
It is essentially the same scenario. Are you willing to gamble with your family's future life in order to save some innocents today, or are you willing to allow those innocents to die today in order to raise your own offspring's odds of living?
I presume you have two kidneys. Do you plan on donating one to someone who desperately needs it, thus taking on potential health problems for yourself? Or are you willing to allow them to die to save yourself the possibility of getting sick? (What's great about this question is that we get a very clear answer about what you would REALLY do in the situation I posited earlier. You know, the one where you impugned my moral scruples.)
So.... How many kidneys have you got?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Your scenario is interesting but of no relevance…….
Shaktimaan – I see you have responded at last with more questions…….Can I trouble you for an answer to the one I asked you?
Now the premise of your choice here is basically that all innocent people are equal and you would never see someone else's daughter put to death merely to save your own. (Unless forced by an illegal, unjustified attack, right?)
Not really, I expect each community to favour its own, but I do not accept that starting wars by attacking and killing innocents is an acceptable action for any democracy……Can you give me an example of a democracy that has started a war in the expectation that by attacking a neighbouring state it could prevent that neighbour from attacking it at some point in the future?
........................
Well, you may not encounter war very often
More often than I would like…..Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Kuwait, 1956 Israel-Egypt, 6-Day war, Yom Kippur, First Lebanon, Second Lebanon, Falklands, Iraq, Afganistan, Georgia, Libya…Be my guest and cite any of these to prove me wrong.
..................
So here's my question... right now there is undoubtedly a young child in need of crucial, (and expensive) medical care. Do you usually spend your money healing children like this, (assuming that your own daughter is healthy for the moment), or do you instead spend the money on health insurance for your own family, (essentially condemning the cancer-stricken child to death?)….I presume you have two kidneys. Do you plan on donating one to someone who desperately needs it, thus taking on potential health problems for yourself? Or are you willing to allow them to die to save yourself the possibility of getting sick? (What's great about this question is that we get a very clear answer about what you would REALLY do in the situation I posited earlier.
Your scenario is interesting but what relevance has it to Israel’s morality in planning to attack Iran?...….The scenario you postulate does not involve me making a decision as to whether to attack innocent people with lethal force in order to prevent them attacking me at some point in the future…..Israel is proposing to do just that.
I have no objection to Israel keeping all its spare kidneys, keeping its wealth and not relieving poverty sickness etc……My objection is to Israel carrying out a military attack and killing innocents simply because they think that Iran may one day attack Israel……You will have to think of a better scenario before your boast of “What’s great about this question is that we get a very clear answer....” comes to fruition!
..............
Perhaps whilst thinking of a better scenario, you might answer the question I put to you in my last post… I will repeat it for you:
1. It has been said that Hitler believed that the USSR was building up its military in order to carry out a surprise attack and destroy the Third Reich at some time in the future.....Hitler pre-empted such an attack by invading the USSR first...If he genuinely believed the USSR was developing such an attack capability, was he morally right to pre-empt the USSR?
.........
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Hard to tell on here sometimes.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)He actually believes that the West Bank the the Holocaust are identical -- which would make the Israelis ... (you know who).
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Someone had already got there before me, and voted to leave it alone by 4 votes to 2 
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)"Several small Palestinian villages in the West Bank had been without electricity for decades..." -- Even during Jordanian and Ottoman occupation.
"...Electricity here, in the hills south of Hebron, was long unreliable. Either it was not available or it was too expensive, produced for just a few hours each day by a noisy, diesel-guzzling generator. That changed when Elad Orian and Noam Dotan, two Israeli physicians who had tired of conflict, came along three years ago and installed solar panels and erected wind turbines..."
--- They've had reliable electricity for three whole years -- thanks to the efforts of Israelis. And now they will all die without it?
"...Since then, such facilities have been installed in 16 communities, providing 1,500 Palestinians with electricity..."
-- So, this effects roughly .06% of the entire population of the West Bank? Truly a holocaust.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Everyone deserves to have things like electricity and clean water. Why do you think Palestinians don't deserve it?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)ANYWHERE on the planet who builds a power grid without a permit is going to have to eventually tear it down.
Another article from AFP on the same subject (cited below) says that the NGO responsible for the funding refuses to even apply for permits or negotiate with Israel for retroactive permits.
http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/west-bank-solar-panels-risk-demolition_2916
Which will lead most people to believe that they didn't build it primarily to give anyone electricity, they primarily built it as a PR stunt.
This also isn't about denying electrical power to Palestinians -- this particular project (according to the OP) only services .06% of the West Bank population. No country in the Arab world has 99% availability of electricity to its citizens. Before Israeli administration, there was no electrical power in the West Bank outside of major towns.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Yr talking about places that aren't under occupation, and where people already have power. Here yr talking about people living under occupation who won't have power if those things are removed, but a fucking permit from the occupiers is more important than them having basic utilities that we all take for granted?
Yes, it is about denying power to Palestinians, or are you of the belief that the people being affected by this are something other than Palestinians...
Urgh...
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Demonizing Israel for the same bureaucracy that happens in every country in the world.
Demonizing Israel for not providing electricity to 100% of the West Bank citizens when not even the US has 100% grid availability
Comparing lack of reliable electrical power to the Holocaust
Buying into a melodramatic theatre-piece that is the heart and soul of the pro-Palestinian (anti-Israel) movement.
How about this -- The PA can make legitimate peace with Israel, declare their own state and they can build as much infrastructure as they want. I'm sure Israel will even contribute to that construction.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Y'know, criticising Israel does not mean someone's demonising it, no more than someone who criticises the US is demonising it. If you'd read what I posted, you'd have noticed that I wasn't even criticising Israel - I was criticising the callous viewpoint in the post I replied to.
The same bureaucracy does not happen in every country in the world, for the obvious reason that every other country isn't occupying territory that isn't part of its state. What is being discussed is people who are living under occupation, where yr more concerned about permits than whether those people are allowed to retain the same basic utilities that you and I have...
Demonizing Israel for not providing electricity to 100% of the West Bank citizens when not even the US has 100% grid availability
That's complete and utter nonsense, and again isn't what I've said. What's being discussed is a specific instance where Palestinians have had power for a few years and now could lose it. If you'd seen me saying 'Israel MUST supply ALL Palestinians with power!' then what you said would make sense...
Comparing lack of reliable electrical power to the Holocaust
That's NOT my viewpoint and that's a really nasty and untrue thing to say...
Buying into a melodramatic theatre-piece that is the heart and soul of the pro-Palestinian (anti-Israel) movement.
Yeah, coz actually giving a shit about Palestinians is enough to label me as 'buying into a melodramatic theatre-piece blah blah blah'. Sorry, but believing that Palestinians should have the same rights and protections as any other people is something most people actually believe in, and for good reason...
How about this -- The PA can make legitimate peace with Israel, declare their own state and they can build as much infrastructure as they want. I'm sure Israel will even contribute to that construction.
How about this? Palestinian civilians access to basic utilities should not be held ransom, especially when we're talking about territory that isn't part of Israel. Not that I've seen the Israeli govt come out with such an ugly suggestion, but I'm pre-empting the next rather ridiculous accusation that in having problems with the opinions yr expressing, I'm somehow demonising Israel
stockholmer
(3,751 posts) Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And, if the Israeli authorities haven't provided electricity to this area, what possible harm does it do for someone else to do so? Israel doesn't have to enforce its authority over Palestinians just for the SAKE of enforcing it.
Sometimes, something actually IS innocent. This is. There's no way that putting in an alternative energy in the West Bank could possibly be threatening to Israel's security.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)In other words, they're being forced to behave like demons and look like demons in front of the whole world, by dastardly people building solar panels in a village where they know the Israeli authorities would never grant them a permit.
It's a possitively diabolical plot by those NGO's.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Good work, Encyclopedia Brown!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I mean, c'mon holden, you can't seriously see the installation of solar panels in the West Bank as a threat to Israeli security. It's absurd to say that Israel always HAS to enforce dominance over Palestinians in the West Bank in EVERY aspect of everything, even things like this that are harmless and totally innocent, simply to survive. That's insanely paranoid. It's the way the tsars thought.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And enforcing the power of the occupying authorities for the sake of enforcing that authority is not a worthwhile goal at all. In fact, it serves no purpose. It's not as if the Palestinians HAVE to live collectively at the mercy of the IDF for Israelis to be safe.
There are some times when Israel has to take measures to protect itself. This isn't such a time or such a measure.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Solar panels aren't weapons-grade uranium, for God's sake.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... of bureaucracy. Which, of course, no other country in the world is guilty of.
I have no doubt that if an French NGO started building solar power infrastructure in the Appalachian Region of the US, there would be no talk of permits or building regulation. The American government would welcome the gift of green power to its more indigent citizens and even thank the French for their concern for the comfort of their American cousins.
Of course these devices are no threat to Israeli security. No one in any of the articles cited claimed that they were. I certainly never claimed they were a security threat. However, read the OP and the article I cited above.
The NGO who built this infrastructure neglected to get permits. When given a chance to retroactively get permits, they refused to even apply. They deliberately refuse to work within the Israeli government bureaucracy.
A cynical person might suggest that they knew that these devices they built would incur the wrath of Israeli bureaucrats. They knew this and built them anyway, knowing that, if they failed to cooperate, the devices would be removed and provide an opportunity for blaming Israel. Thank goodness I'm no cynic.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That doesn't make bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake acceptable.
And all Bibi's government would have to do to buy itself a break here would be to just once, just ONCE, not insist on having to "win" in an exchange with Palestinians.
They should just say "it's not worth the aggro to enforce 'standard policy' here".
And nothing I said in that post was demonization. It was just criticism of a state doing something stupid and doing it for no real reason.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Since there's no government there to issue permits.
Why are permits such a big deal when it's something as harmless as solar panels, and when this area is going to end up being part of Palestine no matter what anyway? Why the fetish with wielding power for the sake of wielding power, even when it's about wielding power over trivialities?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Somali clans KILLED NGO workers who tried to feed the Somali people and took the food for themselves. Is it your claim that Israelis are killing NGO workers?
Not even the US Military could get food delivered in Somali from the clans who were determined to starve their own people.
All the Israelis are asking for is to fill out some forms.
Tell me, Ken... name that magical, mystical country that allows you to build anything you want without permits or process. I'd love to live there.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)These solar panels weren't being built IN Israel. They were being built on land Israel is holding under military occupation. There's a big difference.
(And btw, I wasn't giving the Somali clans a pass on any bad behavior...as you knew perfectly well).
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I believe it was considered quite a new thing back then.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)"This is a facility that was built without permits or coordination, following which we issued a work-halt order and a demolition order, while enabling the organisation [the Spanish NGO, SEBA] to present its stance to an appeals committee, but the organisation's members refused to appear before it," said COGAT in a statement.
--- So, apparently, it's more important to SEBA to have the facilities destroyed then to follow the established process.
However, following a Spanish appeal, COGAT head Eitan Dangot had decided "to freeze the demolition process" and had requested that SEBA submit plans containing details of the solar panel infrastructure. "The organisation has yet to present the plans," the COGAT statement said. A spokesman for the military on Wednesday said they were hoping to retroactively legalise the structures. "Our aim is to approve the facility, but it has to be done by law," he told AFP.
--- It sounds to me like the NGO has been given every opportunity to present their case and to work within the legal framework. I wonder why they wouldn't?
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why does it matter when what they are doing is a harmless, and indeed positive, project?
It's not as if the Israeli government HAS to keep power scarce in this area just to get Palestinians to negotiate.
And, given that this land will end up being part of a future Palestinian state, why can't the Israeli authorities just back off?
It's not as if they HAVE to have power over Palestinians in all aspects of West Bank life just to preserve "security".
Why can't you admit that the Occupatiocrats in this article went too far here?
It's pointless to enforce authority for the sake of enforcing authority. No government on the planet has to do that.
Doing things like this doesn't help Israeli security in the slightest and doesn't do anything to stop "terrorism".
shira
(30,109 posts)"The organisation has yet to present the plans," the COGAT statement said.
A spokesman for the military on Wednesday said they were hoping to retroactively legalise the structures.
"Our aim is to approve the facility, but it has to be done by law," he told AFP.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ikpYAZajKZvtA77hTo7-gLRTZnQg?docId=CNG.f10a404351a8ae5d486eb97d4fb3ce67.551
Now you answer, Ken.
Why are EU funders refusing to go through the bureaucratic process? What point does that serve, other than daring Israel into going through with demolition orders and risk bad PR?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that it's not worth looking this arrogant? Why is it so important to enforce the bureaucratic process for the sake of enforcing the bureaucratic process? It's not as if letting them build the solar panels without filling out the forms threatens Israeli security in any way at all.
It's just alternative energy, for God's sake.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why do you think they're doing that? They 'win' either way, don't they? Either Israel follows the law and goes through with the demolitions (which is an anti-Israel PR victory) or they get their way, Israel allows it, and from now on Israel can't do anything to stop the EU from doing whatever it wants in area C.
Am I wrong?
I mean, if the EU really gave a shit about those Palestinians w/o power, they'd go through the proper channels and try working with Israel. Obviously, the Israeli military leadership wants this to be approved retroactively (and legally), but it appears the EU would rather play political games. And that's detestable, isn't it?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You make it sound like not filling out the forms is a direct challenge to Israel's survival. If the authorities in Tel Aviv were smart, they'd just say "ok, we won't take the bait. They can put in all the green power they want". What would there be to lose?
I'm not sure why this is so inflammatory in your eyes. It's solar panels, not rockets.
shira
(30,109 posts)All they have to do is fill out some paperwork to make things legal retroactively. And then do it from now on.
They'd rather play games.
And you have no problem with that.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)They've been pawns of the Arab States for over 60 years -- now they can be pawns of the EU.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Are you seriously arguing that Israel can only survive if it gets to use its bureaucracy to keep Area C from getting solar panels?
The only possible reason the Occupation authorities wanted them to fill out the forms was so they could deny permission. When it's something totally harmless, like alternative energy, why can't those authorities admit that no "existential threat" exists?
And as to the "60 years" thing...it's not as though the Palestinians would have been glad to not have a state if only "the other Arabs" hadn't interfered. Nobody ever accepts such a thing as their natural station in life. Palestinians were always going to want their own state, and you know it.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)"Are you seriously arguing that Israel can only survive if it gets to use its bureaucracy to keep Area C from getting solar panels? "
-- I think you must be reading something different from what everyone else is posting. I've read nothing to suggest that anyone was saying that except you. Let me put this simply...no carbon-based life form in the galaxy suggests that solar panels are an existential threat to Israel (or the Palestinians for that matter). What has been said, by myself and others is... the EU donors deliberately installed the panel illegally, knowing they would be threatened with removal, so they could create the exact scenario that you seem to be bothered about -- "Look at the big bad Israelis -- taking electricity away from poor Palestinians (cue sinister music)(fade to black).
"...it's not as though the Palestinians would have been glad to not have a state if only "the other Arabs" hadn't interfered."
-- Actually, it's EXACTLY the opposite. The Palestinians would have accepted the UN Partition of '47 if their neighbours, the Arab League, hadn't outright rejected that offer on their behalf. If not for the manipulations of the Arab League, the Palestinians would today have a bigger state than they can ever hope for in the future and would have avoided being the cannon fodder in five different wars. The Palestinians were never even give a choice for a state by their "brothers". Now, decades later, they can still have their state, they just need to work with Israel instead of hoping for the empty promises that are a legacy of their Arab League domination.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If the Israeli authorities insist on the forms and then insist on destroying the panels(you did notice that an Israeli general actually tore up a stay of destruction that was delivered by an Israeli court)it looks thuggish and insanely paranoid.
It's just solar panels. Bibi and Co. have nothing to lose by backing off on this.
(let me ask you this...had they filled out the forms, and then had permission been denied by the Occupation authorities, even though there couldn't possibly be any good reason to deny it...would you be defending the denial?)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why CAN'T the Israelis just let it ride?
It's not as though the Occupation authorities HAVE to be able to make sure that Palestinians have nothing that hasn't been permitted...especially if were talking about nonviolent and totally harmless things like this.
They should turn over permitting in Area C to the PA. What possible harm would that do?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... precisely how many panels the EU donors have installed in Area's A&B
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What part of "it's just alternative energy equipment" are you not hearing?
What the EU is doing here does not threaten Israel.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's nothing THAT special about Area C. It's no different to build solar panels near most of the illegal settlements than it is to build them in any other part of the West Bank. Solar panels don't threaten the settlements.
It's not as if not filling out the forms threatens Israeli control in any way-and, since we can assume that the Occupation authorities would have said no just out of the natural desire of those in power to make those not in power miserable, why should they have bothered?
And if they had denied permission, you'd have defended the authorities for it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)perhaps you might explain to me who these people are who's natural desire to make people miserable are?
does it include democrats in power?...they love to make things miserable to the "blacks" in harlem who are not in power, are you talking about them?
PLEASE ANSWER---PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was a universal statement. And you know it.
There was nothing that singled out anyone in particular.
And in particular, I did NOT say "your natural desire".
So just dial it back already.
I said nothing offensive.
(And actually, those in power in this country, whether Republican OR Democratic, have OFTEN exhibited a desire to make people in places like Harlem,or East L.A., or any number of Native American "rez"s miserable-And acted on that desire, through policies like "redlining".)
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and if its "universal" it includes me....I am after all a part of this earth.
and i know many people in various levels of power that do not want nor do they have any desire to make other people miserable.
i think you should get out more, there is a whole world that you seem to have little knowledge about.....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't know for sure how I might act in a position of this kind of power.
Please stop this tiresome habit of getting offended for the sake of getting offended.
It isn't always about YOU...in fact, it's seldom if ever about you.
And at some point, you're going to have to accept that your side in this dispute are NOT the primary victims(in the post-1948 history of the situation between Israelis and Palestinians) and thus are not always entitled to special dispensations and allowances.
Please give this tactic a rest...it makes you look petty and thin-skinned(in real life I seriously doubt you're THIS hypersensitive) and serves no purpose.
Let me ask you this...would you AT LEAST agree that, in exchange for the UN filling out the forms, the Occupation authorities should PROMISE not to refuse approval of the panels?
Also, I'm guessing that those authorities haven't approved very many of these projects...or at least have taken their own sweet time in approving them...would you agree that this needs to change and that obviously harmless things like this should simply never be refused approval?
As a decent human being, it seems to me you'd HAVE to agree that there should never be any refusal of anything that makes life better for ordinary rank-and-file Palestinians...that's simply common universal humanity to agree to that...right?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't know for sure how I might act in a position of this kind of power.thats why i suggest you get out more and see the world...clearly you have little knowledge of the different kinds of people there are in the world and how they react differently to having power.
you knowledge base is very limited and consequently your opinions are also.
You make gross generalizations about groups of people, about cultures that you nothing about. My suggestion, before you make one of of your broad generalizations...find some actual people that fit what your claiming, and then find some people in that same position that don't fit your generalization.
then try to generalize, you might discover bit of a problem.....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)While I have never made a personal attack on you at any point. Give it a rest-you're embarassing yourself.
You know perfectly well that there was never any excuse for the Occupation authorities in the West Bank to ever delay or refuse permission for the UN in the past to do harmless social improvement projects like this-and that that tradition of delays and refusal is probably what drove the UN to this step.
Solar panels are NOT rockets. And no Israeli has ANYTHING to lose from these things being done for Palestinians.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Oh, and it's also because everyone hates the "you know who's" and show it by their constant demonization of Israel.
And I apologize for this post. It's because "Ignore" doesn't work on DU3 the way it did on the old DU. If I ignore some posters then there will by other posters, like yourself, whose posts I will rarely get to read. I'm sort of stuck having to encounter posts that make my blood boil in order to be able to read your responses to them.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)It happened last Wednesday. Civil Administration officer Nabil Tafsh arrived at Youssef Awad's hut accompanied by a bulldozer. Awad told Rabbis for Human Rights representatives summoned to the site that the official informed him he had one minute to leave the hut and remove the sheep from their pen. Two soldiers forcibly removed Awad and, in a flash, the bulldozer flattened his minimal possessions into a pile of rubble.
Eight people, including children, were thrown out of their shabby hut and left without a roof over their heads on a rainy winter night. The sheep pen was destroyed, and buried underneath it were 15 lambs and a dovecote. Four lambs died, four were injured and 400 head of sheep that were spared lost their shelter. The water cisterns used to provide for the flock were destroyed and sealed.
In a complaint submitted to the Civil Administration, Rabbi for Human Rights attorney Quamar Mishirqi wrote that Awad presented the officer with an interim order from the High Court of Justice ordering a delay in the implementation of the demolition order issued against him. She says the officer tore up the document and slapped Awad across the face. Mishirqi presented an agreement with the State Prosecutor's Office granting Awad 60 days to approach the High Court of Justice before his property would be destroyed. According to her, were it not for a hasty phone call she made that day to the Prosecutor's office, it is almost certain that the Civil Administration would have proceeded to demolish all of the village's houses.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israel-demolishes-west-bank-villages-as-jewish-outposts-remains-untouched-1.413875
How can anyone defend this on any grounds of morality or humanity?
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...but why isn't this ever reported in media sources you tend to trust?
And while that same media never misses an opportunity to attack Jewish extremism, for some reason it never reports things that are exponentially more disgusting. Like the following (and there's plenty more) which I'm certain you'd label anti-Palestinian bigotry if reported:
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The proof is in that pudding.
That's what the Spanish Civil War was about. That's what the partisan militias in World War II(the vast majority of whom were on the Left in some way or other)were about. And the Right in this country are only "pro-Israel" because they want all the Jews to LEAVE the U.S.(those of us on the Left want them to stay and be welcome, as we want everybody to be welcome).
(and I'm not talking Stalin between '39 and '41-by me he was never on the Left).
It's unreasonable to demand that people defend everything the Israeli government does to Palestinians just to prove they aren't antisemites. The Israeli government is NOT infallible, and it's not always clear that that government cares more about protecting Israeli citizens then it does about maintaining its importance in international affairs, an importance that hinges on this war never ever coming to an end.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)we love our guns and shooting people...true sometimes our kids come back in wheelchairs, without a few limbs, but hey, we still love our wars, we get all kinds of toys to play with, new ways of making war...ok, i admit sometimes they backfire and our kids don't come home, but hey, we can always make more kids.....
we like war, all that death and destruction......us the people of israel, which includes our neighbors who are politicians and have army careers and/or serve in the reserves surly love killing more than we love our own kids....
thank you for making that clear.... (i'll be sure to pass it on to my neighbor when they come to borrow some sugar....)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've always made a clear distinction between the two. Most Israeli citizens are not in support of the status quo. It's the politicians who are.
And I said nothing about the military in that post, either(or your friend the general-so can you please let THAT one go already?).
Don't attack me for things I DIDN'T say.
It's about the political leadership...they are mortal people like in any other country...why is it that you can't accept that cynicism and ego can drive the decisions of Israeli politicians just as they can politicians in any other country? It's not as if you have any reason to trust Netanyahu, Lieberman or Barak-or Tzipi Livni, for that matter. In any country, it's the ordinary people who usually want the wars to end, and it's the politicians that usually don't.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the politicians in israel are people, citizens of the country, pay taxes, serve in the IDF.....the vast majority had regular jobs as "ordinary citizens" before entering politics, and hence many are "ordinary people." and have relatives that are in fact "ordinary people"
your post claim that many citizens of israel prefer to keep the war going, i was just clarifying what that means...
that certain citizens of israel clearly believe, as per your posts, that the keeping the war going is more important than their own families
our politicians are not "super beings"....or superior people, some even get tossed in jail, voted out of office and bow to the pressure from the street....and are "ordinary people" who entered politics.
(btw, i also have neighbors that are politicians as well, not just a general)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You were trying to make it look like I was attacking Israelis as a group when you knew perfectly well I wasn't.
I wasn't saying that most(or even "many" Israelis want to keep the war going. I was saying the political class was and is, and they are not the same as the people.
And politicians are not "super beings"...but they do have interests that, more often than not, conflict with the interests of the people as a whole. This is universally true.
So back off. An attack on the politicians is not equivalent to a slander of the people-no matter which politicians and which people you say it of.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Shelly Yachimovich, the new leader of the labor party "part of the "political class"
lets start with her....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelly_Yachimovich
try reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_eighteenth_Knesset
find the "political class" amongst the members of the knesset, you'll find immigrants, journalist, economists, etc amongst the list and then tell me how they don't represent the israeli citizens....
the vast majority were not 'born" as any elite.....many started off in poor towns, as immigrants not knowing the language, career changes because they care...
_____
granted if you do read the list, it will turn your whole word view upside down, so i doubt you will
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I hope Ms. Yachimovich does well and that her party regains strength...the choice between Likud and Kadima is basically meaningless.
Are you now going to argue that any comments about anybody who happens to be Israeli equates to "slander(ing) Israeli citizens"?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the leaders of your country's government may not always have your interests or your life at heart?
And yes, there are people in the Knesset who are of humble origins-the ones who are for trying to end the war, I have respect for. The ones who just care about "winning" and if the first objective is "to win" that's the same as not wanting the war to end, since "victory" in the old military sense is neither possible nor desirable)I don't. And there's no reason to think that the hawks really care more about preserving life than they do about preserving hegemony-and, at some point, you need to ask what hegemony is really worth.
You can't equate any comments about any Israeli figures at all as a group attack on the whole country. To do that is to make discussion of the issues involved impossible.
It should be just as easy to make comments about Israeli leaders as it is to make them about Palestinian leaders-no additional constraints should be needed.
I have nothing against Israelis as a people...I wasn't slandering the nation. So move on already.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
you keep talking about how this 'political class" is separated from the people...that this "political class" want to preserve the status of war.
well as far as i understand, that means this "political class" has no problem sacrificing their children and other relatives who are engaged in this endless war for their own "interests."
well, why don't you go through the list and tell me which ones belong to this "political class" and what is this interest that is more important than protecting their kids?
go through the list, so i'll know how this "political class" is defined- you talk about it enough, so you must have a definition.
______
if you want to "diss" israeli political decisions, military decisions, be my guest. I may or may not disagree, but when you start to tell me that select parts of our population prefer to keep the war going, even when its puts their own kids in danger for their careers, i will call that slandering. (if you search you will find some citizens who in fact do believe that a war is necessary, i know a few, but those are based on religious beliefs and have nothing to do with the "political class" that you keep referring to and can't define.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Frankly, I think Netanyahu in particular has never moved on from his brother getting killed in the raid on Entebbe-even though nobody in Palestine(or at least nobody in or even close to power their today)is responsible for that.
There's no other way to interpret the government's arrogant position on how much territory a Palestinian state would get and how helpless that state would have to be against any future IDF invasions than that Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Barak, in particular, don't even want the war to end. If they wanted the war to end, they wouldn't be pushing for the impossible goal of "peace through victory" or insisting on terms that no Palestinian leadership could ever possibly accept, since those terms are more humiliating and degrading than the independence terms given to any other nation in history. It's impossible for a person to be insisting on the terms the governing coalition is insisting on and still at the same time to sincerely want peace. It's simply impossible. Bibi KNOWS that there's no way any Palestinian leadership that could ever emerge would settle for the crumbs he's getting him, and obviously he doesn't mind if that keeps the war going.
People say the things I'm saying about American politicians as a class all the time, and I'm fine with that. Why is it worse to say them about Israeli politicians.
Why is it so intolerable to you to think that your country's politicians aren't intrinsically morally superior to those of the rest of the world?
You can't really believe that Israeli politicians hate to make war more then politicians in every other country. Why would they? Politicians in other countries have their kids on the battlefields too. And it's not as if no politicians in any other country end up burying their children as a result of war.
It's not mentally healthy to take comments on the small group of people who are governing your country as a personal attack on yourself. Just because you may be loyal to them doesn't mean they are loyal to you.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)israeli politicians aren't morally superior to anyone, your the one whose claiming that their "self interest" is more important than protecting their own children...thats the only way to interpret your view that they prefer to keep the war going for their own interests....
I'm not "loyal to them" in any particular way.....i just resent the way some people have described them as monsters....without the basic human emotion of loving/protecting their own children and family
not to mention your own arrogance:
There's no other way to interpret the government's....
that sentence alone clearly states a level of intolerance that is equal to any religious fanatic....are you really that intolerant of others viewpoints?
People say the things I'm saying about American politicians as a class all the time, and I'm fine with that. Why is it worse to say them about Israeli politicians.
because American may not have "blue blood" but there is a something that is close to a "political class" in the US....people who's sole profession is being a politician or working for a politician....
I noticed that you refuse to look at that list of israeli politicians, perhaps you want to explain why? I'm giving you a chance to learn more about who israeli politician really are?...or perhaps if you discover that, you'll have a real problem with your whole view of the ordinary israeli-once you learn that many of politicians are in fact "ordinary israelis... (you certainly wont like to learn that.....)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I didn't call them "monster"-What I did say was that they have interests that don't necessarily coincide with those of the Israeli electorate. If a long-lasting peace were made, for example, do you think that Likud, Beitenyu, and probably Kadima would retain any real support? Those parties keep that support by making sure that the war doesn't end-and they have to, since an end of war would destroy any reason to vote for parties that put "security" above the daily human needs of the people.
And, really, the fact that a politician might be of humble origins doesn't tell us anything-Richard Nixon was raised a poor kid on a small farm in Orange County. He was also raised a Quaker. Didn't make him a particularly peaceable or compassionate president.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i guess you missed the fact that most have professions and did not study "international relations" or other such degrees that are indicative of the "political class" that you speak of.
if your so intent of claiming that these people have an interest in the wars continuing, why don't you just write it out clearly what it means to them personally:
their personal interest in their careers depends upon the war continuing even if costs them, and their families their own children's lives.
the welfare of their own children and that of their extended families comes secondary to their careers.
just write that out clearly and your stance will be made clear.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't hate Israelis. I wish nothing bad for Israel.
Why SHOULD I think people on the Right in Israel want peace?.
If they wanted peace, how could they keep pushing for MORE settlements(something you condemned and that I praise you for condemning)? Obviously,the settlements and peace can't both exist. The last person on the right at all who was vaguely interested was Sharon(and he made it sound, at the time, like all the Palestinians were going to get was Gaza, so that side rightfully took his offer as an insult). Bibi doesn't want peace...he wants to prevent a Palestinian state being created, and has wanted to prevent that for his entire political career. His proposals aren't for a real state, since they would leave so little territory(and with no contiguity)and with so little means to defend itself, that no Palestinian leadership could EVER accept his terms. Can you seriously disagree with that? The current government proposals don't even guarantee Palestine would have control of its own water supply(as I read them)...and clearly no nation can be sovereign without that.
Those who put ideological arguments about "Judea and Samaria" don't want peace...they just want conquest.
Perhaps its different with rank-and-file Likudnik voters...but I see no reason to believe that. They demand more and more of the West Bank...they defend the daily regimentation and restrictions placed on Palestinians by the Occupation...and they STILL refuse to acknowledge(even as they ask Palestinians to acknowledge past Jewish suffering, which obviously the Palestinians should do)that the Palestinians themselves have ANY legitimate grievances against the Israeli government. The Right in Israel, from all I can see, still clings to the illusion that the whole thing is the fault of Palestinians and of the mythical "unrelenting Arab plot to destroy Israel" that would be the plot that Jordan and Egypt relented from years ago, and that even Syria doesn't seem that interested in these days).
But I have hope...
I don't think the hard-line groups represent a true majority in Israeli politics. They are a great danger to Israel with the demands they continue to make, but they can be defeated. But they have to be defeated, and the politics of eternal fear rejected, for there to be any chance of breaking out of the status quo(a status quo that isn't good for anyone, as I assume you'd agree).
Now move on already...I haven't slandered anyone and you have nothing to be this tiresomely indignant about.
I can respect people who disagree with me, but not people who put immovable impediments in the path of peace and justice...which is what the Israeli Right, at least at the political leadership does.
What you are asking is that everybody in Israel be exempted from any critical comments simply because they are Israeli...being Israeli automatically equate to being a victim, for God's sake.
shira
(30,109 posts)...all have very close family and friends who are required to serve in the IDF? Do you really and truly believe they want their own children, grandchildren, etc.. fighting wars well into the future? And last, do you think most Israelis are so stupid that they don't realize their 'warmongering leadership' wants their children and grandchildren fighting for generations to come, with daily rocket attacks, suicide bombings, etc.?
If you're not going to answer me directly, don't bother.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If they did, they would, at the very least, impose a permanent settlement freeze and make some admission that Palestinians have actual grievances about what the Occupation has done to them. Admitting that, and admitting that the blame for the conflict is not exclusively on the Palestinian and Arab side, would do a lot to help the situation. But frankly, at least as long as Netanyahu and company remain in power, there's no reason for anyone to think either of those things is going to happen.
And if the government actually did want peace, why would they insist on treating Palestinian statehood as a privilege to be earned or denied, rather than a natural right? It's very hard to trust the intentions of the Israeli government when it continues to act as if the settlements don't matter and the collective repression of the people of Palestine under the Occupation has nothing at all to do with the anger that Palestinians feel, has nothing at all to do with the choices that some make to use extreme methods.
What conclusions should I draw about the current government(and it's allegedly "moderate" alternative, Kadima)? Neither treats the Palestinian side in this as equals...neither acknowledges that Palestinians have suffered as much, or more, as Israelis have. Neither acknowledges that Palestinians have a real connection to these lands. Why should I take any of those attitudes as signs that the Israeli political leadership has any interest in peace at all? It's still about "peace through victory" with them...and nothing good can come of EITHER side insisting on saying "we won...and they lost".
And I didn't say that Israelis were stupid. What I actually think is that the leadership of Israel is very, very good at using fear to silence debate about what those leaders do in the name of "security", and legitimate questions about whether those tactics actually make Israel any more secure at all.
So I answered you directly...it's just that the answer isn't a simple "yes" or "no", as you'd like it to be.
I have great sympathy for the people of Israel...the government, not so much. And why should I have any special feelings for that government? It's made up of mortal, fallible people like any other government. Do you really think those people are somehow immune from cynicism or careerism? You put them up on a pedestal that, frankly, I don't think they would be comfortable on.
shira
(30,109 posts)...these leaders having close friends and family who are required to serve as long as needed in the IDF, protecting Israel, going to war against terrorists, etc. This would include all the children and grandchildren of Kadima and Likud representatives. It is those representatives you believe need the conflict to continue. Therefore, it's clear you believe these politicians are very willing to consign their closest friends and their families, as well as their own children, and grandchildren to never ending conflict.
I told you not to bother responding w/o first directly answering my questions. You failed once again.
We both realize that by answering direct questions, you will contradict yourself and demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The leaders don't care as much about human life as they once did. If they did, they wouldn't put other objectives BEFORE the objective of ending the conflict.
And I don't think we can assume that Israeli leaders care more about human life than Palestinian leaders do, or, especially, rank-and-file Palestinians do. Golda Meir always had it wrong. Palestinians mourn their children's deaths as much as anyone else does. They aren't a nation of psychopaths.
shira
(30,109 posts)Actually, it's most of the population, not just the leadership.
You think maybe, just maybe, they see the situation differently? That if they make the concessions you want Israel to make, that would be even more dangerous than the status quo? Maybe they don't believe making the concessions you wish for will end the conflict, but instead make it much worse and far bloodier. Ever think of that, Ken? See, they know something you and your comrades wish to ignore. They know what's in those PMW videos and they know Hamas and the PA are still trying to kill them. They remember history, even if you wish to ignore it, and know very well that agreeing to the Clinton Initiatives in 2000 brought about a very bloody Intifada 2. The Gaza pullout brought about OCL. Concessions and goodwill have not been reciprocated, so why would anything be different due to your brand of social justice? The bottom line being that they believe that doing what Ken Burch wants is somewhat suicidal and will bring on far more bloodshed. Choosing to bring about more bloodshed is not more humane, ethical, or moral than the status quo Ken.
Also, why'd you bring up Palestinians mourning the death of their children? Different subject altogether. Let's finish this one first if you want to get into that?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But what we also know is that refusing to change, as the current Israeli government is doing, can't ever lead to anything positive. Maintaining the status quo isn't really worth anything, since that status quo, an ugly stalemate that helps no one, can't ultimately be maintained anyway.
What's being done now isn't working. Can't you see that? It's not possible to get peace by wearing the Palestinians down.
shira
(30,109 posts)It means they fear that conceding what you demand will just result in more bloodshed. You're totally misrepresenting them.
In fact, Netanyahu offered 60% of the W.Bank for a Palestinian state with temporary borders.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html
Peres and Barak practically begged Abbas to agree but Abbas rejected it. So ironically, under Netanyahu there would already be a Palestinian state, and the rest of the issues could still be negotiated. It's not everything the PA wants, but like the Gaza pullout it shows Israel is committed to the 2 state solution.
Also, you can read that very recently Netanyahu was making an offer similar to that of Olmert's in 2008...
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/netanyahu-s-border-proposal-israel-to-annex-settlement-blocs-but-not-jordan-valley-1.413473
The GOI is not refusing to change.
Now you tell me, based on all those PMW videos and the fact the PA won't move towards 2 states (they never counter anything Israel offers with something reasonable), when will you start taking the PA to task?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's not me demanding...I'm not the leader of the Palestinians, I'm just one person offering my opinion.
You can argue that change doesn't work...but the status quo isn't working either...all this is is more stalling for time(while more of the illegal and unjustified settlements get built and more land is taken by them) and the arrogant "creating facts on the ground" thing. And it's naive of you to pretend that the settlers and the expansionist hard right aren't a major part of Bibi's constituency(the raving maniacs who still go on about "Judea and Samaria", as if those words are worth generations of future blood and future misery), and that he isn't going to cater to them...as well as to the fact that, as you know, Israel is only important on the global stage as long as it remains in conflict with Palestinians and the Arab world. End that, get a region totally at peace, and well, a visit by Ehud Barak to Washington would get about as much press coverage as a visit by the Swiss defense minister.
THAT is why I say the governing politicians of Israel, as opposed to the people, have a need to keep the war going. You're going to have to accept that people like Netanyahu and Barak and Lieberman and Livni are not walking saints. Like any political leaders anywhere else, they have interests that conflict with the interests of the people they represent. Why is it so unthinkable to you to admit this? Most Israelis themselves get it, from what I can see, whatever they may think of the conflict.
Plus, the Palestinians didn't gain much when they did change in the Nineties...the settlements were expanded and new ones built through much of that...which was a stupid practice, since there was never a chance that more settlement building would make the Palestinians do what the Israelis wanted them to do. They have trust issues from that time that have to be addressed. If nothing else, Israel SHOULD announce a permanent and irrevocable settlement freeze. That wouldn't jeopardize Israeli security in the slightest, and it would help build trust on the other side, which they have just as much reason not to feel as the Israelis do at present.
that 60% of the West Bank in Bibi's offer wouldn't have been contiguous...as I understand it, Palestinians would have still had to go through checkpoints to get from one part of Palestine to ANOTHER part of Palestine. No Palestinian leader could accept that. No leader anywhere could. The only sort of offer that Palestinians could accept would be one that made their state a state at a level of parity with Israel...which would need to include the right to self-defense, since every other state in the world has that(and also, of course, a real non-aggression pact).
The Palestinian leadership could do better on a number of things...but I'm not going to follow your lead and treat them like they're Nazis.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:07 PM - Edit history (4)
Doe Hamas want peace? does islamic jihad want peace?, does the PA want peace?
explain to me how i should know that their political leadership wants peace?...they need the war to keep the money coming in from the donors, not to mention the UN
if they wanted peace, why are they trying to kill me, my family and friends almost daily?....why should i believe them? and not Netanyahu?
______
are you 100% sure?....are you so sure that if we leave some settlements, destroy some, that they will "return the favor" and show us something in positive in return?
____
AND PLEASE STOP...YOUR KILLING ME!!!!!!
What I actually think is that the leadership of Israel is very, very good at using fear to silence debate
Silence the debate in israel? what the fuk r u talking about, silence what debate? how is that possible to silence ANY debate in israel on anything?
why don't you show me an example....if you can't perhaps you might want to explain it?
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't take comments about people who simply happen to BE Israelis as a personal affront. Those people aren't you. And nothing I can say in an Internet message board can do those people any real harm.
This is just a discussion. Those politicians hear(and say)thirty times worse things to each other every day in the Knesset...and in six or more different languages. Nothing I post here is going to harm any of them. Do you think they even care about this exchange you and I are having?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)"And the Right in this country are only "pro-Israel" because they want all the Jews to LEAVE the U.S."
When has anyone ever said such a thing? And this....?
"It's unreasonable to demand that people defend everything the Israeli government does to Palestinians just to prove they aren't anti-Semites."
No one ever says these things but you ken.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's especially tied up in right-wing support of "Last Days" fundamentalist Christian extremism(which requires that all the Jews choose conversion or death before the "Christians" can be "RAPTURED" . It goes back to a lot of the code phrases evangelicals use(what did you THINK Falwell and Pat Robertson and the rest of them meant by "secular humanists"?) It was in Reagan placing the wreath on the Nazi graves at Bitburg(an act that made any of the offenses supposedly committed by Jesse Jackson utterly trivial).
The "Christian Zionists" don't give a damn about Jews.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the Israelis' have created a self fulfilling prophecy. The constant worry about preventing the next Holocaust, but they are in essence opening old wounds instead of letting them heal. These solar panels are not threatening to the state of Israel, and are not in any means capable of disrupting Israeli military air craft targeting systems. Thus, one must conclude that Israel government is taking this tough stance approach to appease the fringe minority hard liners. If you were probably to ask many Israeli citizens they wouldn't object to keeping the solar panels up.
Green energy is a plus anywhere in the world IMO.
