Mid East Crisis- Picture thread
-
there are jews and arabs there. there are jews, christians and muslim there too.Originally posted by Pitot:U mean there are absolutely no arabs at all in israel?
-
There are a lot of Israeli Arabs who identify with the national identity and refuse to regress into that primitive war.
Many serve as soldiers in the IDF as well. -
So is it that the israeli chased arabs out? Dont think so, its the extremist minority who choose to be so idiotic.
-
much of the western media has this bias against Israel, despite whatever the muslim world thinks, the image of tanks against gunmen (terrorists) toting AK47 must have seen helpless and romantic to the leftist liberals that infest much of the academia and media in the west ...
what's it like living in a society were any jacket wearing stranger could be wearing a bomb, where farms have to barricade themselves in a night, every other person have to lug a weapon to be ready to instantly defend themselves at all times, where children have to ride to school in armoured buses, where the flash you see in the night sky is more likely to be a terrorist rocket instead of a shooting star, where you live in a region, out-numbered 30 to 1 where everyone hates you for who you are, what your religion is, and seeks to kill you and your entire race ? ....
it's a tragedy for both sides no doubt, but the loop-sided fight that many people see is actually not loop-sided at all ... -
i think you need to read up on what led to terrorism.Originally posted by Pitot:So is it that the israeli chased arabs out? Dont think so, its the extremist minority who choose to be so idiotic.
it all started with zionism. -
wtf ? ......Originally posted by dragg:i think you need to read up on what led to terrorism.
it all started with zionism.
-
Not really, if you read the violent history of Islam, Shiite and Sunni never get along and killed each other for centuries even today it still happen, just a few days ago, 2 Shiite was killed by suicide bomber in Karachi.Originally posted by dragg:i think you need to read up on what led to terrorism.
it all started with zionism.
Similar thing happen in Iraq, the age old war is still raging between Shiite and Sunni.
Then there is Turks and Arabs against Kurds, and in Sudan Arabs muslims massarce African muslims etc. -
Heard of hezbollah?
-
It's the essence of asymmetrical warfare actually. The Israelis are superior in conventional weapons and hence use conventional tactics, while the Palestinians and Islamic extremists have to resort to unconventional tactics to counter. Lop-sided? I believe the casualty figures will tell you.Originally posted by Fatum:much of the western media has this bias against Israel, despite whatever the muslim world thinks, the image of tanks against gunmen (terrorists) toting AK47 must have seen helpless and romantic to the leftist liberals that infest much of the academia and media in the west ...
what's it like living in a society were any jacket wearing stranger could be wearing a bomb, where farms have to barricade themselves in a night, every other person have to lug a weapon to be ready to instantly defend themselves at all times, where children have to ride to school in armoured buses, where the flash you see in the night sky is more likely to be a terrorist rocket instead of a shooting star, where you live in a region, out-numbered 30 to 1 where everyone hates you for who you are, what your religion is, and seeks to kill you and your entire race ? ....
it's a tragedy for both sides no doubt, but the loop-sided fight that many people see is actually not loop-sided at all ... -
Erm....you need to elaborate more. Anyway, it's a fact that in their early days the Israelis did have terrorist organisations such as Irgun and Stern. They not only carried out attacks against Palestinians and Arabs, but also against Europeans and Jews who opposed the Zionist cause. One of the leaders of Stern, Menachem Begin, actually did eventually become the Prime Minister of Israel in the 1970s.Originally posted by dragg:i think you need to read up on what led to terrorism.
it all started with zionism. -
Originally posted by Pitot:
is there a need to in the first place? so what's your point in saying this?
Like I've said before. [b]"simply, dont Fark around with Israel."[/b] -
Just dont play with israel as simple as that.Originally posted by tiggersgd:is there a need to in the first place? so what's your point in saying this?
They have already put in effort to maintain the peace. And yet the extremists choose to irritate them time and time again. Pulling out of Gaza and the west bank shows that they try to improve the situation, only to be met with irritance by the same group of people that ask for peace. How ironic.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:wtf ? ......
As i said, its a group of idiotic extremist trying to create their own way of life. If you dont belong, you die.
Terrorism started with zionism?
There are many more forms of terrorism in the world. It dosent just refers to the ones in the mid east. -
Pitot,
I don't think you understand the whole situation.
I think that is the crux of the problem that goes back to before WW1. At the time the Ottoman Turks controlled the area and the Middle-East was a whole lot quieter than it is today. There were Jews and Arabs living together but neither owned the land, which was controlled by the Turks.
There was a movement initiated by the Jews in Europe to establish a Jewish homeland in Ottoman-controlled Palestine but obviously that was not possible then. Instead, British Prime Minister Palmerston wrote to the Ottoman Sultan urging him to welcome Jews to return and settle in Palestine, arguing that adding their wealth to the sultan's dominion will be in his interest. There was no talk then of taking Turkish territory to create a Jewish nation.
Unfortunately, the Turks sided with the wrong side and lost WW1. At the Treaty of Versailles, the British were given the mandate over all of Palestine, which included present-day Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian State. The British unilaterally decided to back the establishment of a Jewish state in the mandated lands, as contained in the Balfour Declaration. This was done without consultation of the local Arabs.
Over the years before WW2, the British allowed Jewish immigration to Palestine but it was limited because of increasing local Arab opposition. In fact, the British forbade Jews escaping the Holocaust from immigration into Palestine.Terrorist groups sprouted on both sides. There was an Arab revolt led by the Grand Mufti who felt the Arabs were marginalized in their own home. On the other hand, there were Jewish terrorist organizations who ran illegal immigration rackets and one Jewish terrorist group even assassinated the British minister Lord Moyne in 1944.
During WW2, the Arabs were divided between those who supported the Allied and Axis forces, although the Nazis courted the Arabs against the Jews. Following the assassination of Lord Moyne, Churchill dissociated himself from the Zionist cause and despite American pressure, the British refused to allow survivors of the concentration camps to emigrate to Palestine. In response, the Jewish terrorist group Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where the British administration was based. Sensing the situation getting out of hand, the British wanted out of Palestine by 1948, thus pacing the way for the formation of Israel.
In view of the British determination to return the Mandate by 1948, the United Nations decided to create a Jewish and an Arab state with Jerusalem under international jurisdiction. Most of the Jews accepted the partition plan but it was rejected immediately by the Arabs. Some Jews rejected it as well, chief among which was Menachem Begin (later Prime Minister of Israel), who was chief of Irgun, once a Jewish terrorist organization. He insisted that Jerusalem should remain Jewish.
In 1945, most of the private land was owned by Arabs who formed two-thirds of the population and Jews controlled about 20% of cultivable land. The bulk of the land, however, belonged to the government and with the formation of Israel, fell into Jewish hands. Local Arabs obviously resent the loss of their land and have never accepted the right of the British or the UN to carve a jewish nation from Palestine, which they regard as their home.
So where did the capture or kidnapping occur? Some Arabs might say that the creation of Israel unilaterally against the wishes of the Arab inhabitants was not justifiable in the first place and they do not recognize the legitimate existence of the jewish state. As such, they might contend that it took place in disputed Palestinian land. They might well consider all of Israel as disputed land.
To some Arabs, the only reason the UN was able to bring Israel into existence was because the Ottoman Turks lost WW1, which set off the entire series of events. If it is the right of conquest that gave Britain and then the UN the power to partition the land, some might feel that violence would be necessary again to gain it back. Since they are militarily too weak to win a conventional warfare, some obviously feel that terrorist action such as suicide bombings might be a legitimate weapon.
I do not at all condone the actions of either Jewish or Arab terrorist organizations, but a consideration of the history will reveal that both sides have resorted to such means. The Middle-east problem is by no means black and white. Whilst condemning Palestinian suicide bombers, we have to remember that their grouses are also not without cause.
Qouted from oxford mushroom -
this thread is fast becoming a little too rich for the average nuts around here. -
I can understand your explanations. But the problem now is to find out a solution to these issues and not to argue about the problem.
In a conflict. Both sides suffer. Arguing who deserves the land will go no where. If it works, there wouldnt even be a conflict right now.
I think we need to figure out a way to work out peacefully. Not chasing each other out.
Israel has excercise restrained over what it can. It took a step forward on the road to peace. Unfortunately, the radicals took a step back. Its a give and take situation, but they just wat the whole population wiped off the map. You think its right? Finding out who will be at fault is not the solution. Finding out how to end the violence IS the solution. -
Everybody wants a solution, but if the mistakes of history are not to be repeated, you need to find a solution that works. What will NOT work is a unilateral solution imposed by the UN or western nations without the support of the local people, Israelis and Arabs alike. Israel withdrew from Gaza but then built illegal barriers within the occupied territory, thereby provoking Palestinian fears that they are attempting to mark out the permanent borders of the jewish state. To live quietly in face of the concrete barriers may be seen as acceptance of Israeli-drawn borders, something the Palestinians will never accept.Originally posted by Pitot:Israel has excercise restrained over what it can. It took a step forward on the road to peace. Unfortunately, the radicals took a step back. Its a give and take situation, but they just wat the whole population wiped off the map. You think its right? Finding out who will be at fault is not the solution. Finding out how to end the violence IS the solution.
One must not lose sight of an important element in this continuing conflict. If the problem is just extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah, the problem can be resolved. The fact is, these groups have the overwhelming support of the local Arabs. Remember that Hamas is the legitimately elected representative of the Palestinians. Hamas won a popular vote in a democratic process. Even in Lebanon where there is a significant proportion of Christians, Hezbollah has 12 elected MPs and 1 cabinet minister. Israel has not been able to exterminate these groups and so they are targeting civilian infrastructure and property. All Israel has done is further incite hatred among the common people against themselves. As long as the people hold similar views to Hamas, you can destroy Hamas, but like the Hydra's head, a new terrorist group will spring up almost immediately.
The UN can impose a solution and make all kinds of resolutions. But if the people do not accept it, the conflict will go on. So the key is the people. What do the Palestinian people want and what are the issues close to their hearts that prove so difficult to resolve?
There are many obstacles but I will just raise two major problems. Unless both sides are willing to accept a compromise on just these two issues, there is no hope of reaching concordance.
First, there is the right to return. Do you realize that there are 4 million Palestinian refugees who have been displaced by the Israel-Arab wars? These refugees have been living in overcrowded camps scattered all over the Middle-East. Their host nations (such as Jordan and Syria) want them to return too, and have no intention of taking these foreigners in. These are people who had homes in Israel, many of them still holding on to the deeds and keys of their houses, which are now occupied by Israelis. They demand the right to return to their own property but Israel has always rejected the right to return. These Palestinians also base their claim on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 194, passed in 1948, which states that Palestinian "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date".
Remember that in 1945, Arabs form two-thirds of the population in present day Israel. Today, Israel has a jewish majority, not only due to massive immigration of jews from all over the world, but also because of the displacement of the local Arabs. Now these Arabs want to return home to Israel as part of the solution. Israel is worried because the return of 4 million Arabs to Israel (current population: 6.6 million, of which 5.4 million are jews) will drastically change the social political landscape. With a higher birth rate than the jews, Israel could well see a Muslim Arab majority in its population in 10-20 years' time.
Israel is therefore adamant that these Arabs are not allowed to return home to their own property and lands. Put yourself in the shoes of these Palestinians, will you accept it?
For any solution to work, there must be a right to return or fair compensation for the properties and land lost. A practical solution will probably have to incorporate both..right to return for some and generous compensation for the rest.
The second major obstacle is the issue of Jerusalem, a city holy to 3 major world religions and was intentionally excluded from the map of Israel in the UN partition plan of 1948. The British and the UN came to that decision that it had to be under international jurisdiction because they knew neither the jews nor the arabs would allow Jerusalem to be in the hands of the other party.
Yet right from the start, Menachem Begin (leader of a former jewish terrorist group and later Prime Minister of Israel) insisted that Jerusalem would be the 'eternal capital of Israel'. Subsequent Israeli leaders have held that view.
We have not even considered the thorny problem about borders. Will Israel ever give way on just these two issues? Will the Palestinian people accept the current arrangement without resolution of these two issues? I doubt it. -
1) The Israelis just bombed a water drilling vehicle in a Christian neighbourhood right infront of BBC cameras..
a Hizballah stronghold ??
2) Earlier, they bombed a Milk factory in the beqaa valley and a Chicken Farm.
3) At while ago.. Israel told all South Lebanon civilians to leave (300,000 people).
http://gifs.msn.co.il/media/glz.asx
4) Israel is releasing criminals to soldiering WTFYnet has learned that in light of the security situation dozens of incarcerated IDF soldiers will be released from military prisons and returned to their units.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278382,00.html
“In times such as these it is important that soldiers with important duties remain in their units and prepare for any event, even if this means releasing them from jail early,” a military source told Ynet.
Until now four soldiers were pleased to hear of their imminent release from prison.
WTF... what was the reasons for lebanon bombing and invasion about again ??? -
It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory.
So the truth is out... the Israel soldiers were caught in Lebanese side...
Read the full article.. it's interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html -
It's Time to Stand Against Israel
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01196_it_time_stand_against_israel.html
By Matt Hutaff, Jul 18, 2006
Last month the Toronto Sun published an editorial entitled "It's time to stand with Israel." Repeated indemnification of Palestine and its supporters aside, it's mainly notable for the title, which insinuates the world is somehow "against" Israel.
It's a funny thing when one considers the current political climate surrounding the rogue nation. After all, Israel has launched two wars in less than 30 days, one against the Palestinians, the other against Lebanon. Throughout their aggression, which has seen destruction in the tens of millions of dollars (to say nothing of the incalculable human cost that continues to rise), the Western world has done everything it can to legitimize said violence. American politicians loudly proclaim that we stand united behind Israel while magazines such as Time paint the Middle East as a curiosity. "Why do they fight?" they ask while ignoring the patently obvious answers: They're on someone else's land. And they want more of it.
I grow tired of Israel, whose various deceptions and exploits have graced my writings for years. Has it made a difference? Doubtful; our elected representatives continue to do everything in their power to protect a nation that undermines us every step of the way. When Israeli spies steal coveted secrets there is no execution, only jail time or a quiet deportation. When Israeli agents attempt to goad us into war with Egypt (see the Lavon Affair or the attack on the USS Liberty) the murdered go unavenged and the investigation is buried.
When Israel steals land from others we look the other way. When they make plans to murder Hamas leadership then shell a Palestinian beach to create a conflict for invasion, we shrug. And when Israeli soldiers are captured in Lebanon, their act of retaliation is to level infrastructure that is still recovering from 20 years of Israeli occupation.
And we look on and sigh, as if we are not the genesis of all this violence. We might even reassure ourselves that Israel has the right to defend itself by sending the nation another couple billion dollars. Before you assuage that guilt, however, consider the following:
Report con't -
Some Interesting Articles.. incase you got brainwashed by Western Mass Media.
Latest targets of air blitz: milk and medicine
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74078#
By Lysandra Ohrstrom
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
BEIRUT: Israel switched gears in its military campaign against Lebanon Monday and Tuesday, launching a series of debilitating air strikes against privately owned factories throughout the country and dealing a devastating blow to an economy already paralyzed by a week of hits on residential areas and crucial infrastructure.
The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come.
"I think the picture will be much worse than we can possible imagine when the whole thing ends, but the direct damage from yesterday's attacks to the industrial sector alone will take years to recover from," said Wajid al-Bisri, the vice-president of the Lebanese Association of Industrialists (LAI).
"So many of these factories were barely functioning before," he added, "because of local obstacles to production like high energy costs and labor."
Due to broken lines of communication to the affected areas, the full extent of the material and human damage was still unknown when The Daily Star went to press. However, up to 15 factories have been hit, according to some estimates
Report con'tIf Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1822923,00.html
The west appears to insist that only one side in the conflict is able to intervene militarily across borders. That will never be accepted
Ahmad Samih Khalidi
Tuesday July 18, 2006
The Guardian
Much has been made in recent days - at the G8 summit and elsewhere - of Israel's right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognise that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel's "disproportionate use of force" rather than its basic right to take military action.
But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defence, but symmetry and equivalence. Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own "right to self-defence" as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel's stance on both counts.
From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap and eliminate its perceived foes - repeatedly, with impunity and without restraint - while the Arab side cannot do the same. And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.
It is important to bear in mind that in both the case of the Hamas raid that led to the invasion of Gaza and the Hizbullah attack that led to the assault on Lebanon it was Israel's regular armed forces, not its civilians, that were targeted. It is hard to see how this can be filed under the rubric of "terrorism", rather than a straightforward tactical defeat for Israel's much-vaunted military machine; one that Israel seems loth to acknowledge.
Report con't -
IsraelÂ’s Terrorism
http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm
by Gabriel Ash
The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring “militants” and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas.
To be clear, Israel’s actions fit the very definition of terrorism. Doubly so now, since the bombing campaign is a response to attacks on Israeli soldiers, not civilians. The ever more morally bankrupt “international community” sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. Don’t take my word for it. An aide of the Israeli PM said recently: “We are acting there [in Gaza] in an unprecedented manner; we’re firing hundreds of artillery shells, attacking from the air, sea and land and the world remains silent.”
Having been so encouraged by the world’s indifference to the bombing of Gaza, Israel is giving Lebanon the same murderous treatment. Putin and Chirac have managed to assemble some moderate testiness. The rest of the world called for “restraint.” When the mission statement is to exact revenge and kill civilians, what’s restraint?
According to the EU, Hamas has to renounce violence to become a “responsible government.” And Hizbullah has to release the captured soldiers. The Israeli government, on the other hand, although responsible for an unending campaign of terrorism, need not renounce violence, nor release any of its political prisoners. The brotherhood of money and white skin is proving again to be thicker than blood.
HizbullahÂ’s intervention proved again it is the only power that wouldnÂ’t stay silent in the face of Israeli barbarism. Since Israel recognizes neither international laws nor international borders, there was nothing morally wrong in HizbullahÂ’s fighters crossing the border into Israel to raid a military patrol. Israel should not enjoy the defense of principles it doesnÂ’t respect. With its latest raid, Hizbullah consolidated its position as the leading popular voice in the Middle East, displaying tactical brilliance, solidarity, and a refusal to be bribed or cowered that is putting the rest of the world -- the Arab puppet governments as well as EuropeÂ’s hypocrites -- to shame. To boot, Hizbullah is also putting to shame other Muslim radicals, most notably the Iraqi thugs and Al-Qaeda, both by successfully raiding legitimate military targets and by feeding a broad popular consensus that cuts across the Sunni-Shia divide.
However, courage and legitimacy aside, it is anybodyÂ’s guess whether the leadership of Hizbullah foresaw that Israel would go postal and open a full-blown air war against Lebanon, shooting civilians in cars like ducks. If they did not, they were certainly shortsighted, and if they did, they were reckless.
Nevertheless, it is far from clear who wins when the dust settles. While guaranteed to suffer severe damage, Hizbullah still has the odds on its side. When Israel invaded Lebanon for the umpteenth time, government officials announced that Israel’s goal was nothing less than the disarming of Hizbullah and the setting of “new rules of the game.” That pronouncement sounds awfully reminiscent of Sharon’s stated goal for invading Lebanon in 1982, to create “a new order in Lebanon.” What are the chances that Olmert will have better success than Sharon? Slim. Hizbullah will nor disarm willfully. Who will disarm it? There are three candidates, and none of them looks too promising.
Israel: Israel can re-occupy Lebanon. That would certainly be a setback to Hizbullah, which would lose men, installations, and freedom of operation. But can Israel destroy Hizbullah? Note that Israel is unable to destroy Hamas, a much weaker organization, on a much smaller territory. No matter how much violence it used, Israel couldnÂ’t prevent Hamas from launching rockets and gaining popularity. Will Israel be more successful in Lebanon?
The “International Community”: One could see France and the U.S. occupying Lebanon, probably under the guise of some invitation from the Christian minority, or a call for U.N. “peacekeeping” a la Haiti. Assuming Western powers are stupid (or cornered) enough to take the bait, can they achieve in Lebanon what Israel, with a lot more commitment, couldn’t? A Western occupation of Lebanon is likely to turn the whole Middle East into one long crusaders vs. Muslims crescent. Does the West have the stomach for that? Does it have a reasonable chance of winning?
The “Cedar Revolution”: The most promising alternative, for the West, is to empower some local stooges that would rule the new Lebanon colony for Western and Israeli interests. That is the West’s favorite strategy, currently tried in many places around the globe. But Shiites are a poor, radical, bitter and armed majority in Lebanon. It would take more than a few Starbucks customers to subdue them. The anti-Hizbullah coalition is small and weak. Its unity is doubtful and its willingness to fight far from evident. Hizbullah, on the other hand, will have not only well-disciplined cadres and massive popular support, but also the support of Syria and Iran.
Israel could seek to cause as much damage as possible to Hizbullah’s infrastructure with aerial assaults, then call it victory. But the blow to Hizbullah would not be enough to put an end to its operations, probably leaving Olmert in the unpleasant position of having to declare impotence. Hence the scenario of a full-blown war is extremely plausible. Such a war will eventually involve an Israeli invasion seeking to severely weakens Hizbullah, followed by an international peacekeeping force that replaces Israel and nurtures a government of Lebanese collaborators. In the rosiest scenario that government eventually gains the ability to repress the majority of the Lebanese population with only Western financial support. At that point the “peacekeepers” withdraw and Lebanon joins the dubious fraternity of Egypt and Jordan, safe Western puppet regimes.
A not-so-slight complication of this classic colonial scenario is the fact that Hizbullah is not an isolated resistance movement; rather it enjoys the international support of Iran and Syria, as well as strong ties with the Iraqi Shia militias, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, in the context of a growing resource conflict between the superpowers, Iran could eventually receive covert support from Russia and/or China, in ways reminiscent of the support the Afghani Mujahaddin (and Bin Laden) received from the U.S. Thus, a successful repression of Hizbullah is likely to require at some point dealing a severe blow to Syria and Iran, and such a blow could require a proxy war between the U.S., Russia and China.
To put it differently, the Israel-Hizbullah war can remain contained, or it can end in a decisive manner. But it cannot both remain contained and end in a decisive manner.
(In light of this, one must read skeptically Western editorials calling on Israel to exercise caution, avoid overreaching and limit itself to targeting Hizbullah only are a miserable attempt to defend Israel while keeping up the pretense of opposing the targeting of civilians. The fact is the “collateral damage” is not a result of Israel’s failure to “minimize the damage to civilian bystanders.” Since Israel can only achieve its aims by widening the scope of the war and forcing other parties to get involved, “damage to civilians” is not a by-product but the core of Israel’s strategy of escalation. The longer other parties fail to get involved, the more civilians will die. The New York Times is right that such indiscriminate murder strengthens Hamas and Hizbullah, but the problem is not one that Israel can rectify by changing its tactics. The problem is Israel itself and its true goals.)
Article Con't -
Why pretend that what is essentially a religious conflict is something else ? ...
that's the crux of the problem, it's not really about land, space, or resource ...
the people on both sides can't get along because their respective religions preaches exclusivity, even though they are all different branches of the same judeo-christian monotheistic tradition .... all three religions call God by different names, but it's still the same God ..... so what does that say ? .....
so rabbis and immans goes on preaching hatrad and bigotry, and bombs fell on one side and rockets fell on the other, people goes on dying, and the loved ones of the dead on each side hate the other a little more each day ...
Religion is the root of all evil, of man's inhumanity to man and the opium of mankind ....
-- an atheist -
what happened to the pictures?
-
This latest conflict started when Hezbollah kidnapped two israeli soldiers. Free the soldiers and the conflict ends.Originally posted by dragg:to begin with, the israeli land belongs to the palestinians.
People who always harp on what happened in day 1 do not progress.