Looks like Bush

bastard ian, my laptop is now covered in snot and water as i was taking a drink when i read that.

i heard a debate on radio 2 this morning on the israel / palestine situation. quite simply the tiptoeing around the israelis being wrong would have been funny if not for the frustration of the palestinian representative. THIS is fundamental to a solution. once killing is called killing and emotive words like warfare (israel) and terrorism (palestine) - actual terms used in the debate btw- are left at the conference door then things may start to progress. during the debate it was actually the israeli representitive who seemed more reluctant to forgive and forget.
cheers


julian

 

michaelab,

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in your last post. As you say, we're not going to agree on this, other than I'm sure we'd both like to see a peaceful resolution.

 

Absolutely.

Michael.

 

That strikes me as using the very same logic that the palestinian terrorists use for their targeting of Israeli civilians. ie

To paraphrase:

"All Israelis are either in the army, army reservists or will be conscripted in to the army for thier national service in the future. Therefore they are all either combatants or potential combatants and so valid targets."



It seems to me that the problem is deeply and irrovicably entrenched on both sides.

Stalin did the same thing with eastern europe after the war. Did the west believe it was justafiable then? If not why is Israel allowed to use such arguments?

The simple fact is that irrespective of the details of the conflict the west is being hypocrytical with regard to it's support of Israel, by supporting a regime that is clearly using excessive force to solve it's security problems.

To draw an analogy. Ask yourself why it is considered morally reprehensible for a man to hit a woman. The answer most often given is because women are smaller and weaker than men. Palestine as a military might is significantly smaller and weaker than Israel, yet Israel is rarely condemed by the one world power that has any influence over it's action. A power that claims to be on the side of moral right.

Another point. The killing of civilians in order to win a conflict is nothing new. The palestinians aren't even doing it particularly successfully. The allies bombed German cities with huge loss of life. This was a purposeful use of terror in an attempt to weaken German resolve. The justification? Well the Nazis were evil of course ! and had to be stopped at all costs. So ask yourselves why Palestinian arabs shouldn't use similar tactics when the people who are telling them it is wrong essentially invented them ! and their family members are being killed on a daily basis by Israeli soldiers. At least the Palestinians have some justification in using the argument that they have no other military means at their disposal, unlike the allies during WWII.

Of course, the solution will never be a military one in this conflict. It has to be political. However, it is very hard to feel that way when you feel oppressed to the extent that the palestinians do.

GTM

 

If 'all Israelis' are between the ages of 18 and whatever (national service age) then I'd concede that you have a point. Your wording 'in the future' implies that babies and children are legitimate targets and this I cannot accept.

I quoted UN Resolution 242, not an argument used by Israel.

My 'NOTE' is a comment on the precise wording of the resolution. I believe that the interpretation I have given is that which is generally accepted but you may, of course, interpret the resolution differently.

And that's the point. If a war cannot be won, why fight it?

My opinion is that while Arafat was the leader he didn't accept that the war couldn't be won and didn't do enough to try to negotiate peace.

My opinion is that the Israelis do have that realization and would go to great lengths to secure a peace.

I understand that others here have a different opinion. The truth is that NONE of us know. Unless we were sitting around the table with Clinton in 2000 (for example), how could we?

 

Lol