Help me out here....

If our neighboring country, Mexico, began sending Mexican terrorists into our country on a weekly basis, setting off suicide bombs and killing innocent civilians in the U.S., and the Mexican government dragged their feet or just gave lip service for several years, but DID NOTHING about it, would we not eventually raid and invade their country and take matters into our hands ? <br /><br />So why is it then, that Israel, when placed in that same situation, and responds in the manner I described, they are condemned by virtually every coountry, INCLUDING our country, for being inhumane ? <br /><br />In fact, what we are doing in Afghanistan is not a whole lot different than what Israel is doing in Palestine, now is it ?? Yet Israel is constantly painted as the villain.<br /><br />WTF am I missing here ?

I believe what you describe is part of the justification of the Mexican-American War. obviously they werent terrorist with bombs but americans in what was is now Texas and near the then border were being harrased by Mexican bandits and the Mexican govt didnt do anything.<br /><br />To get back on point though im not sure things are so clear cut as you put them. If America went and occupied Mexico City and most of Mexico and them Mexicans began to terrorize Americans that might be more then what is going on in Israel.

I dont know about that. I dont think you can compare an invasion of Mexico City to the land Israel has occupied.

I would say that would be MORE justifiable than going halfway around the world to occupy a country and fight terrorists. And I'm all for that, too!

Mick, don't compare it to Mexico City then. Compare it to the people Native to this country living in reservations. Now, the Palestinian claim of "being there first" is false and all, while the people native to this country have a true claim of being here first, but let's look at it on our own front.<br /><br />Land we "occupy" today, is land we took from the Indians. If they were strapping on bombs, slipping off reservations and killing civilians, you can bet something very devestating would be in store for the rest of them. <br /><br />In the fictional creation called Palestine -- as you probably don't know that it's NEVER existed and was always Southern Syria -- the bombers aren't coming from occupied territory for the most part. They are coming from areas outside of occupation and moving into the occupied areas to kill. The Palestinian people IN the occupied areas may not have it great, but, they have it better than any other Muslim people have in any other Arab nation.<br /><br />Understand, it's not the people living under "occupation" that are generally rebelling. It's the radicals that don't live there who want the extinction of the Jewish race as their main goal who are hiding under the guise that they are being unduly occupied. Israel has been attacked repeatedly over the years and Israel has consistently won these wars.<br /><br />Just like we've done and we've expanded our territory. Jewish settlers purchased land to set up most of Israel, much like we purchased land from the French to purchase the Lousiana Territory, or the entire Western portion of this nation. The Israeli people are right here and are living in territory that is correctly and legally their place. People under their rules have a better life than they would have anywhere else in the region.<br /><br />More Muslims are oppressed, tortured and killed in Iraq than have EVER been killed attacking Israel, but, the Arab world won't criticize an Arab. Israel should simply annex the rest of this land and give the fictional Palestinian people a better place to live while rooting out and killing anyone who tries to harm her.

An interesting article along similar subject lines...<br /><br />Postmodern Palestine<br />The new amorality in the Middle East<br /><br />There is a postmodern amorality afloat — the dividend of years of an American educational system in which historical ignorance, cultural relativism, and well-intentioned theory, in place of cold facts, has reigned. We see the sad results everywhere in the current discussions of the Middle East and our own war on terror.<br /><br />Palestinians appeal to the American public on grounds that three or four times as many of their own citizens have died as Israelis. The crazy logic is that in war the side that suffers the most casualties is either in the right or at least should be the winner. Some Americans nursed on the popular ideology of equivalence find this attractive. But if so, they should then sympathize with Hitler, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh who all lost more soldiers — and civilians — in their wars against us than we did. <br /><br />Perhaps a million Chinese were casualties in Korea, ten times the number of Americans killed, wounded, and missing. Are we then to forget that the Communists crossed the Yalu River to implement totalitarianism in the south — and instead agree that their catastrophic wartime sacrifices were proof of American culpability? Palestinians suffer more casualties than Israelis not because they wish to, or because they are somehow more moral — but because they are not as adept in fighting real soldiers in the full-fledged war that is growing out of their own intifada.<br /><br />We are told that Palestinian civilians who are killed by the Israeli Defense Forces are the moral equivalent of slaughtering Israeli civilians at schools, restaurants, and on buses. That should be a hard sell for Americans after September 11, who are currently bombing in Afghanistan to ensure that there are not more suicide murderers on our shores. This premise hinges upon the acceptance that the suicide bombers' deliberate butchering of civilians is the same as the collateral damage that occurs when soldiers retaliate against other armed combatants. <br /><br />In fact, the tragic civilian deaths on the West Bank make a less-compelling argument for amorality than the one revisionists often use in condemning the Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo bombings. Then British and American planes knowingly incinerated civilians in their quests to shut down the warmaking potential of the Third Reich and imperial Japan. Unlike what the B-17s and B-29s did to stop fascist murdering on a global scale, the Israelis are not carpet-bombing indiscriminately. Rather they are doing precisely what we ourselves were forced to do in Mogadishu: Fighting a dirty urban war against combatants who have no uniforms, shoot from houses, and are deliberately mixed in with civilians. So far the Israelis have probably killed fewer civilians in a year of fighting on the West Bank than our trapped soldiers did in two days of similar gun battles in Somalia.<br /><br />An ignorance of historical context is also critical for such postmodern revisionism. If the conflict is due to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, then the first three wars for the survival of Israel itself must be conveniently ignored. If there is a push for the exchange of land for peace, then we must overlook that some in the Arab world who have suggested just that bromide in the past three decades were either assassinated or executed. And if we accept that both sides are equally culpable for the current killing, we must forget that less than two years ago the Palestinians rejected an Israeli offer to return 97 percent of the West Bank, along with other major concessions — assuming that unleashing the present intifada could get them still more.<br /><br />Facts mean nothing. The dispute is purportedly over the principle of occupation — but next-door Syria holds far more Lebanese land than Israel does the West Bank. The dispute is supposedly over ethnic intolerance and gratuitous humiliation — but Kuwait, quite unlike Israel, ethnically cleansed their entire country of Palestinians after the Gulf War. The dispute is said to be about treating the "other" fairly — but Syria and Iraq summarily expelled over 7,000 Jews after the 1967 war, stole their property, and bragged that they had rid their country of them. The upcoming Arab Summit could spend weeks just investigating the Arab murder and persecution of its own people and Jews.<br /><br />Multicultural distortion also appears in a variety of strange ways. Palestinian spokesmen harangue Americans about their tilt toward Israel. Yet they also speak in grandiose terms of an "Arab summit" and a global Islamic brotherhood. Apparently, fellow Muslims, Arabs — and kindred autocracies — are supposed to support Palestinians unquestioningly because of religious, cultural, and political affinities. Yet we multicultural Americans are not entitled to exhibit similar sympathy for Israel, which like us and unlike Mr. Arafat's regime, is a Western, democratic, open, and free society. <br /><br />It is less demanding to watch television than read, safer to blame or praise both than investigate the culpability of one, neater to create rather than recall facts, and better to feel good about oneself by adopting platitudes of eternal peace and universal tolerance than to talk honestly of evil, war, and the tragic nature of man. When you combine such American laziness and lack of intellectual rigor with worries over oil and anti-Semitism, then our baffling nonchalance about the current war against Israel begins to make sense.<br /><br />Moral equivalence, conflict-resolution theory, utopian pacifism, and multiculturalism are, of course, antirational and often silly. But we should also have the courage to confess that they bring on, rather than avoid, conflict and killing, and breed rather than eradicate ignorance. In short, they are not ethical ideas at all, but amoral in every sense of the word.<br /><br />— Victor Davis Hanson, author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power

Riggo, and Art, that makes sense. It seems to only further justify Israel's actions. However, the question in my mind still lingers : If Israel is justified, then why do non-Arab nations such as ourselves, condemn them for retaliating ? Are we just fence-sitting doing lip-service to the Arabs, so as not to anger them further. Is this just a political game so we can please both sides ?<br /> <br /> <small>[ April 02, 2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Mick ]</small>

To answer that question Mick. More than likey yes. In order to broker a peace agreement and attempt to please both sides, the administration could be doing just that. Riding the fence. Not the first to do so either. Here's the latest according to abcnews.com. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast_020402.html" target="_blank">http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast_020402.html</a><br /><br />Interesting to note that 1) Bush is defending isreal's right to defend itself and 2) The U.S. is being "pressured" to take on a more "active" role. That can be confusing.<br /><br />I think some of this has to do with perception. We react to what we see and hear on T.V. and on our computer screens. Take what Art said for example. Most of these attacks on Isreal have been by radidcals. Now martyrs.(That's big over there). People who for the most part,(one of the female bombers actually lived there if I recall),don't live there.<br />Bomb goes off, kills civilians,which was the intent, and then Isreal rolls the tanks. This could be percieved as a bit strong if the "incident" is taken individually. And there in lies the problem. I don't believe Isreal is doing that. It's a collective thing. All the bombings and killings come into play. Perception.

In terms of what Israel is doing to retaliate to these constant, unprovoked and terroristic attacks, I've never fully grasped why people think it's inappropriate for a nation to respond with weapons of war to such attacks. I've heard "disproportional" response so often from people who like to slam Israel and it disturbs me.<br /><br />What would a proportional response by Israel be? Would it be proportional to strap up an Israeli soldier with bombs and march him into a public square occupied by the fictional Palestine people in order to blow them up? Would that be proportional? I don't think so.<br /><br />Israel has, in fact, killed people who are innocent of crimes in retaliatory strikes against those who would attack it. But, these are not targeted strikes against innocent people and Israel has no other option but to respond with weapons of war to terroristic attacks against it.<br /><br />You are right though PCS, the girl a couple of weeks ago did live in areas of Israel under Israeli control. Still, as we've stated, for the most part the vast majority of these unprovoked attacks is occuring by people NOT under occupation.

I think it's all lip service from the US. If we really didnt want Israel to do anything they wouldn't. The deterrant of US involvement ultimately keeps the Islamic crazies at bay. At the same time we cant come out and fully support Israel otherwise we would face more trouble from those crazies.<br /><br />I really dont care (and neither does our Govt) what the stinking French have to say about it.<br /><br />Why are their trees lining the streets of Paris?<br /><br />So the Gernman soldiers can march in the shade.

Actually Kilmer 17, I'm not so sure that any Govt., besides the French, actually cares what the French Government thinks. They'll just surrender anyway. <br /><br />Funny thing Art. Right after reading this thread this A.M., I went to the gym. Sure enough the disproportional "losses" subject came up. I pointed out exactly what Victor Hansen wrote about this and got a "good point" for a response. What's that line from Nighthawks. To effectively combat a violence, one must respond with a greater violence. I tend to agree. <br /><br />My point on perception was a somewhat shortened attempt at helping Mick there. I hope it wasn't taken as piling on Isreal.

That dispropotional ratio is stedily shrinking.<br />I'll can't find the link but it used to be for every 20 Palestinian 1 Israli would die, now I think it's down to something like 5-1.<br /><br />I curious though, what exactly is 'a more active roll' for the US in all this? We tried diplomacy many times and it has failed many times. What more do they want from us? Do they think that if we do it one more time it will work then? We can't do anything until they, not us, WANT to do something, otherwise all the talk is for nothing.

rskin, the ratio used to be 10 to 1. There is now not a ratio. The 10 to 1 was imposed by Israeli leadership as a deterrent. New leadership hasn't done that meaning that Israel still kills more, but now there's not a fixed number it has to kill is all.<br /><br />PCS, I didn't and don't perceive you as jumping on Israel. I was just commenting on the stupidity of the disproportional argument. Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

I would just like to point something out. While I do not condone the murder of Israeli civilians I do not think the Palestinians had any other recourse.<br /><br />If we take Northern Ireland for example, which to me is probably the best comparison of what is going on in Israel. During the 1970's the Provisional IRA began to bomb targets in London and Belfast. Because of the violence created by the IRA the British began to consider a peace agreement. While there is not peace in Northern Ireland at the moment things are much better then they were 5 years ago. The British govt was never willing to listen to Catholics when they tried to do things peacefully, whether through parliament or through peaceful demonstrations. The only thing that brought the British to the table was violence. Its a horrible reality I know but its the facts.<br /><br />In my opinion I do not think Israel would have ever made any concessions to the Palestinians. I agree with Art who says that Palestinians may have it better then Isreal then other muslims do in other countries. However even if this is true it is a minority of people dominating a majority. When Isreal was founded Jews only made up 1/3 of the population, Arabs 2/3. If Isreal were a true democracy then Arabs would be represented in the Israeli Parliament. <br /><br />While the murder of innocent civilians is horrible can anyone give a logical solution the Palestinians living in Israel? Sadly when the Isreali Prime Minister Rabin(?) was assassinated I think that put back the peace process 10-15 years. He was at least willing to make peace whereas Sharon dosnt seem to care either way.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The British govt was never willing to listen to Catholics when they tried to do things peacefully, whether through parliament or through peaceful demonstrations. The only thing that brought the British to the table was violence. Its a horrible reality I know but its the facts. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But with Isreal and the Arabs violence only breeds more violence. They may negotiate and have temporary respites, but the same old song and dance is all but sure to return. It has been like that since biblical times. Is there any stopping it? If there is ever true peace there it will truly be a miricle.

You very well could be right. I realize that violence is not a good solution as it creates the desire for revenge and it increases hatred towards the other side.<br /><br />But again what is the solution? If you were a Palestinian what besides emmigration to another country can you do?

Romo sits to pee, why shouldn't Palestinian people leave an area in which they are oppressed for a better life elsewhere? Why isn't that there out instead of targeting and killing innocent Israeli citizens? No one claims Israel is a true democracy. Israel doesn't claim Israel is a true democracy. They are a Jewish state and they are bigoted toward Jewish people. I couldn't server on the Israeli Senate because I'm not a Jew. <br /><br />It's certainly a society that doesn't breed a lot of inclusiveness and for that Israel is probably a flawed place. But, they do allow Palestinians to live in peace. It's Palestinians that don't allow Israelis to live so. And, in fact, we should be asking ourselves why these oppressed people aren't going to make a better life in one of the neighboring countries there.<br /><br />Why is it an expectation that a Palestinian state is mandatory here when, in fact, there's never been a state of Palestine and there never has been a people of Palestine? Why aren't we asking about the "Christian" state in the area to be fair since there's a Jewish state and a Palestinian state? The fact is, these people want Israel to become extinct. They want Jewish people dead. <br /><br />Remember now, European governments carved out what is today Saudi Arabia and that is seen as ok. Simply allowing the Jewish people to breathe is too much to these fanatics. If it was an Arab state, we'd never have the "Palestinian" issue because as Arab leaders in the 1940s so loudly stated, "Palestine is a Zionist creation". We're talking Southern Syria here, nothing more. <br /><br />And perhaps it's time for the people who don't like the Jews to move back up to Northern Syria where they come from.

From what i know of its history prior to WW2 most of the people in the area known now as Israel were arabs. Maybe you are right about migration patterns of people moving from Syria to Palestine. However there were people in what is Israel before the creation of the state of Isreal.<br /><br />Why should those people have to move just because Isreal was created? Why should those people not be allowed to equal participation in the government?<br /><br />Regardless your solution of having Palestinians move to Syria or other countries in the area may be the only feasible alternative to constant violence.<br /><br />I do not think every Palestinian or Arab wants to end of the Israel state. I think that is the stance taken by the more extreme militants. I may be wrong though. If I am wrong then Israel will always come under some form of attack from its neighbours.

From what i know of its history prior to WW2 most of the people in the area known now as Israel were arabs. Maybe you are right about migration patterns of people moving from Syria to Palestine. However there were people in what is Israel before the creation of the state of Isreal.<br /><br />Why should those people have to move just because Isreal was created? Why should those people not be allowed to equal participation in the government?<br /><br />Regardless your solution of having Palestinians move to Syria or other countries in the area may be the only feasible alternative to constant violence.<br /><br />I do not think every Palestinian or Arab wants to end of the Israel state. I think that is the stance taken by the more extreme militants. I may be wrong though. If I am wrong then Israel will always come under some form of attack from its neighbours.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Romo sits to pee:<br /><strong>I would just like to point something out. In my opinion I do not think Israel would have ever made any concessions to the Palestinians. I agree with Art who says that Palestinians may have it better then Isreal then other muslims do in other countries. However even if this is true it is a minority of people dominating a majority. When <br />Isreal was founded Jews only made up 1/3 of the population, Arabs 2/3. If Isreal were a true democracy then Arabs would be represented in the Israeli Parliament. <br /></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, there are Arabs in the Israeli parliament, and there are Arabs who have Israeli citizenship. One of the major sticking points in negotiations has been the "right of return" for Palestinians living in other countries. Jews do in fact make up the majority. Jews accepted the partition that would have only given them a portion of Palestine, but the Arabs did not.<br /><br /> One of the reasons Rabin was willing to trade land for peace was to ensure a Jewish majority. He once explained that he was more concerned with demography than geography. Israel did offer considerable concessions under Barak - 97% of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. And Clinton took the most active role of any world leader in history to bring about peace in the middle east. The bottom line is that any compromise is an anathema to a significant minority of Muslim fanatics (remember some of the postings of our now nuked Skins comrade who claimed that anything short of all of Jerusalem was blasphemy), and Yassir Arafat does not have the fortitude of a Michael Collins or even of the shifty Gerry Adams to make the kind of decisions that would bring about a lasting settlement. He only knows how to survive, and how to blame others for his short-sightedness.

mick was wondering where this thread went and since i suppose i should respond i will.<br /><br />rigoo: i was mistaken about the arabs in the isreal parliament. i think Art said something about people needing to be Jews to be in the parliament. Sadly i must also concede on the other point. There seems to be many muslims who are against Jews no matter what they say or do. I recall reading an article in the Toronto Star right after Sept 11. A reporter went to talk to scholars in Pakistani universities about the Koran and how it was being manipulated by Bin Laden. A couple of the professors professed that they believed that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy so that America would attack the Muslim world. Thats scarry when a country's educated people believe things like that. <br />About the Irish question-im taking Irish history so i know a bit about this. I guess a BIG difference is that Catholics in Ireland didnt depend on one guy ala Arafat. There had been many great leaders of Irish independence ever since 1800 and each one of these leaders had some very capable people along side him or her, yes her. I may be mistaken about the PLO leadership but i only see Arafat and that guy who is the representative to the US. If the PLO had a legitimate political wing, ala Sien Fien to the IRA, maybe peace would be more attainable. I, like George Sr and Clinton, had a great deal of hope in Arafat as a peace leader. However each day seems to make that hope dim even more.

If only Kefka were still around, he'd set all you guys straight on this issue. <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" />

Oh yes, his wisdom and love of America and it's policies (especially toward Isreal) surpasses us all.<br />How we long to hear from you again Kefka. <img border="0" alt="[notworthy]" title="" src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" />

I will take Kefka's side of the debate so you guys have the fodder you are looking for.<br /><br />How would you feel if someone came into your home and took it from you. Wouldn't you fight back? The state of Israel is a crime. Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. Open your heart to God and you will see this. He will show you.

I took your advice Kefk- Art, I opened myself to God. And he did show me something....<br />Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.<br />You want to go around blowing yourself and other people up, fine...go ahead. Just expect to recieve the same treatment back.<br />Live by the sword, die by the sword.<br /><br />Palestinians defending themselves?<br /><br />Interesting FACT: In modern history, Isreal has yet to start a war. Who's defending whos self?<br /><br />Interesting FACT #2: They have also yet to lose a war.