Israel launches air strike into Syria ... Holy Crap!

The last paragraph of the article you linked dismisses the validity of the whole thing. It's nothing more than a rumor.

Point being, Israel has the right to defend itself. Not searching for sympathy but just because Israel has military supremecy doesn't mean that they should relax and be happy that their "iron dome" will protect them. A Gaza rocket hit Tel Aviv as recently as October.

 

This is not the point. Of course every nation has a right to defend itself from attacks it did not provoke.

But there's no need to act like Israel is in a hostile zone. Most of the countries in the region are US allies, which means they pose absolutely no threat to Israel. Most of those countries would attack, jail and abuse their own citizens before allowing those citizens to take any action against Israel.

Other than Hamas and Hezbollah, no one has engaged in any aggression towards Israel even if many of them are unwelcoming to Israel in the region. These two organizations must be stopped of course, but because Israel and the US insist on defining the organization as: "anyone who has ever known anything about Hamas is part of Hamas", and they run a policy which funnels money right into the hands of those who fund Hamas, in a severely poor area... it becomes impossible to weed out the main culprits. Desperate people will affiliate themselves with morally corrupt groups in times of need - this is true for Palestine, it was true at the birth of Israel and it has been true for virtually all humans in history.

Despite this alleged aggression from neighbours, Israel is far more violent and its neighbours have a much better case to make that THEIR neighbours are hostile. Israel has attacked Palestianians, Lebanon, Syria and has threatened to wipe Iran off the map with nuclear warfare. It does not have respect for international law or treaties. It continues to expand its borders and largely turn a blind eye to settlement activity. It keeps ramping up its weapons and army. It's holding all the nuclear weapons in an otherwise nuke-free zone. It has the ability to buy higher calibre weapons than anyone else in the region. Like many other countries, its elected officials are drifting further and further to the right of the political spectrum.

Israel is the dangerous nation in this region. To say that Israel's behavior is justified because it's in a hostile region - that's an absolute joke. The region has been docile towards Israel for a long time, and the regional people in power share common allies and enemies with Israel.

The only threat is those two organizations, and the only way to stop them completely is to engage in a fair peace process with the Palestinians. But as a sovereign nation Israel has decided that it is best to keep doing what it does as long as possible, and the predictable outcome of that policy is that the radicalized portions of the nearby populations will resort to solutions at their disposal - and what's at their disposal is crappy guns and amateur rockets. Israeli policy is studied and reviewed constantly, so if at any point they wanted it to stop they would just say: "here's Gaza. Here's West Bank. Here's East Jerusalem. Now leave us alone." and it would be over.

The problem of course is that they wouldn't have accepted that deal 10 years ago, and they will accept an even worse deal in 10 years time. So where's the incentive for Israel to stop bulldozing its way into the Middle East?

 

False. Israel was bombed a couple months ago.

False. Israel has given land back and has not claimed any new land for over a decade.

Also, for more context ...Arabs are allowed to grow their settlements in Israel. Why should Jews be limited in settlements in Palestine? It doesn't sound fair to me. One side is being held to a higher standard than the other. Curious about your thoughts.

That is a opinion. I respect your belief and understand your point of view. Israel believes their behavior is justified based on national security interests. I will refrain from interjecting my personal opinion. All I am trying to do is separate facts from opinions. My belief is that Americans understand very few facts.

False.

False. The reason Palestine has not been officially recognized as a country by the international community is because it states that the only resolution will be for the destruction of Israel. Iran has also stated as such.

False. They have already did that in 2005 ...and it isn't over.

It's difficult to understand what is happening over there when all parties can't agree on the basic facts. That was my only point in having this discussion. I don't really want to get into a battle of who is right or wrong. I simply wanted to raise the level of awareness about what is happening because Americans seems to swaying their sympathies more towards the Arabs without having an understanding the proper context.

 

You have to consider that Israel has had peace treaties with two of its neighbors for decades and also that some of its other neighbors have other problems that prevent them from taking hostile action.

True not all but you argue for perspective and context and I am providing the counter to the idea that Israel is under major threat. It is threatened but not nearly as badly as you say.

Except though you seem to be ignoring many other facts which would apply a more complete context.

I fully appreciate how complicated the situation is and frankly I don't have a strong opinion regarding Israel's air strikes into Syria either way. That said I am not sure how much you understand the intricacies of the situation and seem to be buying into the argument solely from the Israeli side.

The key word is "abandoned." Do you know how old those cannon are or what condition they were in? I highly doubt old cannon sitting out for years by the Sea of Galillee represent much of a threat.

You have argued for context and understanding but here I think you are lacking context. Israeli Arabs are not the same as Palestinians in regard to official status. Palestinians in the occupied territory are not Israeli citizens and have many restrictions on access to Israel proper. Further Palestinians in the occupied territories face restrictions to movement in the occupied territories and are not allowed into Israeli settlements. While Israelis have limitations to some of the PA controlled cities that hasn't prevented Israelis from living in the occupied territories. The legal rights regarding things like settlement are not the same between Non-Arab Israelis, Arab Israelis and Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel.

 

Fact: Within the last 50 years, Israel was fought wars against every neighboring country.

Oslo Accord. All troops were withdrawn in 2005 and the Palestinian Authority was officially created to govern.

You made the statement that Israel is "the dangerous nation in this region" and that Israel's hostilities are justified "is a complete joke". Those statement are opinions ...not factual. (I am not perfect but I'm trying to stick to facts. I've made a couple errors that acknowledged and corrected.)

Sorry you are not separating facts from opinions as you don't seem to be able to even distinguish between the two. Saying something is false does not make it false.

Unprovoked is a key differentiation in your statement. I don't want to get into who provoked who. What constitutes being provoked is one of the MAJOR controversies in this whole thing. An attack is an attack so I'm not differentiating what was justified and what wasn't.

 

A peace treaty doesn't make you a friend.

I didn't say how bad the threat was ...just that it exists.

Perhaps. I'd love to learn more if you can present other facts.

I only brought it up to illustrate that the threat is real and not imaginary. I think most people forget that all these nations were at war. To this very day, American's view Russia as a threat ...but we have a treaty with them too.

I don't dispute that my knowledge is limited. Feel free to add even more context.

Prior to 2005 there were the very same Arabs. The only thing that makes the distinction is the Oslo Agreement negotiated with Arafat to draw the lines for "Palestine".

After 2005:
Arabs in Israel were offered citizenship and can move freely.
Jewish Palestinians were labled as occupiers and are expected to withdrawl.

Why?

 

Did a little research after all.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 includes the following language:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

"The main premise of the Oslo Accords was the eventual creation of Palestinian autonomy in some or all of the territories captured during the Six-Day War, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel."

In other words, stop saying that you are going to wipe Israel off the map.

 

To be fair, quoting Oslo in such a way isn't fair. Oslo was broken by both sides (and its very easy to argue that the Israelis did far more to break it than the Palestinians ever did)

Once Rabin was assassinated, Oslo was dead. Netanyahu torpedoed everything the moment he had the chance. Meanwhile Arafat was convinced that he had been duped and thought he was signing an accord that would pave the way to independence (which Oslo really didn't do)

Now if Rabin was still around (along with President Clinton) to reassure Arafat that independence would happen if they stuck to the script, then maybe history happens differently.

But the failure of Oslo has little to do with the language of the charters. There were far more pressing issues that killed Oslo. Oslo never addressed the right of return or the final borders of a Palestinian state Without leaders committed to flexibility on both topics, those issues were guaranteed to wreck the peace process. (which both did)

The deal Barak put on the table at the end of the Clinton administration failed because he wouldn't give an inch on the right of return and because Arafat couldn't accept a land deal in which he didn't get 100% of what he wanted.

Those few years after Oslo were the only hope for peace for a generation. And the assassination of Rabin quickly ended that. I doubt we'll ever see a moment like that for a long time. (particularly as long as the Israelis continue to elect right wing leaders)

 

That is some interesting insight. Thanks for that.

That said, it doesn't change why I quoted the Oslo Accord. It was in response to the claim that there is no evidence that Palestinians wanted to destroy Israel. The quote I provided was "evidence" that Palestinians did not acknowledge that Israel was a legitimate country. I did not quote Oslo to say it is currently valid.

However, it's legacy is still felt. Per Oslo, Israel did in fact withdrawal troops from West Bank and Gaza in 2005.

What Israel has NOT done is forced all Jews to leave the territories. However, Israel also has not forced Arabs to leave Israel.

So again, (I've asked 3 times now and nobody has bothered to address it):

Why is it okay for Palestinians to kick out Jews when Israeli's are not kicking out Arabs? Why the double standard?

 

There is no military occupation of Israel by the Palestinians.

4th Geneva Convention, Article 49:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Furthermore, Palestinians did not kick out Israelis in the Gaza Strip. This was done entirely by Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, also known as the "Disengagement plan", "Gaza expulsion plan", and "Hitnatkut", was a proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005, to resettle all Israelis from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the northern West Bank.

Lastly, Israeli is not kicking out Palestinians from Israel because the vast majority lived or are descendants of those who lived in that area prior to the creation of the state of Israel. I believe a majority live in East Jerusalem, a territory Israel occupies and illegally annexed in 1980.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b...6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument

Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

 

And as of 2005 there is no military occupation of Palestine either.

It doesn't occupy the territory since 2005. The civilian's that are there have always been there, in some cases prior to 1947. When Israel was recognized as a nation, it didn't expel people based on religion. Israel offered them citizenship. Palestine, as it tries to form it's own nation, is not offering the same to it's residents. Instead, it wants to expel all Jews that happen to live there. That is the flaw in the logic.

Palestinian's (and supporters) continue to call the Jews occupyers ...even if the residents had been there since prior to 1947.

That plan was an international plan worked out by many countries. To say that Israel came up with that plan is a rather large misrepresentation.

Jews also lived in Palestinian territories. That is exactly the logic I am questioning.

Jerusalem is split four ways and Arabs have their own section. Furthermore, Arabs are able to freely travel to any part in Jerusalem. Conversely, Jews are not allowed to visit certain parts particularly Muslim mosques.

Should Arabs take over Jeruselem, they certainly will restrict access to it just as they have done in Bethleham. However, no such restrictions are currently in place under Israeli areas. The only restrictions that are in place are related to restricting existing Palestinians who could serve as a terriorist threat. Which is no different than any other country on earth. America doesn't allow unrestricted access to non-citizens without questioning and proper documentation. In my opinion, if Palestine wants to be a govern nation, then it must play by the same rules as the rest of the world rather than expecting special rules that it's citizens can roam freely in someone else's nation.

 

I'm guessing you are referring to removing settlements in Gaza? I am not sure how that = no military occupation in Palestine.

I think it's important to distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories.

So there are Palestinians in Jerusalem who have a special status because Israel annexed the city. An Arab from Ramallah can't just come to a mosque in the city. About, Muslims not allowing non-Muslims in their houses of worship sucks (hardly a surprise though) but is a different subject.

Honestly, krosfyah I wouldn't take what was fed to you in Israel as gospel. My parents have been as well recently and were subjected to a lot of half truths (Israel is hardly the only place where this would happen.) There are a lot of good things about Israel (technology hub, resilient people, hot chicks) but I don't support its policy towards the Palestinians. Take a look at this video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A7XtT91yO6g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

It doesn't just like having a pre-nup doesn't make for a great marriage but it does provide a legal framework for peaceful coexistence. I am not saying that all the Arab countries love Israel but the idea that they are want to destroy Israel just isn't true. If that was the case they never would've entered treaties.

You wrote:

That is painting a picture that these are countries are continuing their conflict with Israel and won't settle for anything less than the total destruction of Israel. That isn't supported by the facts.

I've already presented tons of facts, Jordan and Egypt having a peace treaties with Israel, Oslo Accords where the PLO recognized the existence of Israel and etc. Further the Arab League just today proposed a new agreement to allow for landswaps with the Palestinians in exchange for recognition from league countries.
[rquoter]Arab states appeared to soften their 2002 peace plan on Monday when a top Qatari official said Israel and the Palestinians could trade land rather than conform exactly to their 1967 borders.[/rquoter]

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-...-seeks-regional-support-for-peace-push-311525

The 2002 plan was a return to the 1967 borders. Note the source is the Jerusalem Post.

There are many Americans who do but I doubt that most Americans worry that the Russians are going to invade ala Red Dawn style or launch nukes at us. We don't consider Russia a friend and consider it a strategic rival but Russia is hardly an imminent threat.

I'm trying to be nice here but you have posted many things that anyone with a decent knowledge of recent history can easily counter.

Once again your facts are wrong. These were not the same people prior to 2005. I think you are mixing up things like the creation of Israel in 1948 with the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza which happened in 2005. The area known as Palestine since 1948 was always considered partitioned and many Arabs living in the 1948 Israeli borders became Israeli citizens along with some from East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel has never offered citizenship to all residents of Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights, or the Sinai prior to 1980. Israel has resisted that idea because it would demographically destroy the Jewish state.

Again this is fairly common knowledge and easily researched.

Anyway none of this mean that I personally think Israel is bad and the Palestinians are good and that Israel shouldn't exist or doesn't have a right to defend itself. In regard to bombing Syria I think there are valid reasons for Israel to do so. The consequences though might be very problematic. That said you are claiming to present context yet are providing a very one sided view based upon highly limited or flat out wrong information.

 

Never said they were nice people. Never said that Israel's neighbors are well run. Pretty much all of those countries are horribly run and too often blame their problems on others but none of that changes the fact that Egypt and Jordan have official treaties with Israel and that the governments of Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah is a different matter) haven't launched attacks against Israel in decades.

That would be correct except for the fact that we also support Egypt and Jordan along with very undemocratic states in the Gulf Region. There are strategic and ideological reasons to support Israel but by far the biggest reason is political.

 

1) Hezbollah is not a different matter.
2) They have been launching attacks nonstop - see 1)
3) Neither has North Korea waged actual war against South Korea in decades. Nevertheless, they are a threat. So are Israel's neighbors. Whom are you trying to kid here.

 

So much for Syrias vaunted air defense systems. Israelies went in there, dropped a mini nuke and didn't lose a plane.

 

A peace treaty does not make you a friend...indeed. Hopefully these hard heads completely understand that.

 

The Native Americans agree..

 

Apparently you don't understand context either. By a "different matter" the context is that Hezbollah has attacked Israel. Hezbollah though isn't a state like Jordan or Syria.