Suppose the Situation was Reversed?

[Skeptic]

We keep hearing from lots of people here how evil the israelies are for "indiscriminately" killing palestinians, and how they are no different than the Hamas.

Now, in the last two years, about 2000 palestinians were killed.

Suppose now that it was the Hamas that had the helicopter gunships, tanks, and so on, instead of the other way around? How many jews, do you suppose, it would have killed in the FIRST DAY of the fighting? More or less than 2000?

Get the point? What matters is not the number killed alone. It's the fact that one side (the Palestinians) are genocidal in their intentions, hoping for a second holocaust and doing their best to reach it; the other (the israelies) trying to defend themselves.

[Frostbite]

This is such a naive idea. See, the Palestinians are desperate. They're cornered and using desperate measures. Israel, on the other side, are backed up the wazoo with money, soldiers, weapons, tanks, helicopters.. you name it. Anyone would be using desperate measures if they were in the Palestinians' position.

[JAR]

That's exactly right Skeptic. I am amazed at the amount of restraint Israel has shown when it comes to defending itself from the Palestinians.

As of now, when it comes to war with the Palestinians, Israel still has the kid gloves on.

[Monketey Ghost]

Yah. So the Palestinians have the tanks, money, and weapons. and the Israeilis are after getting back the land that was stolen from them.

Somehow the people with Israel-goggles on choose to ignore the basic point of the Palestinian grievances. And it always becomes "the genocidal Palestinians".

Their land was stolen from them, they live in camps, and they're supposed to accept it and "move on". Were I Palestinian, I'd be ready for desperate measures myself: bomb them the f**k out of my land.

[Earthborn]

Skeptic, are you saying that if the Palestinians lived under the exact same circumstances as the Israelis and the Israelis lived under the exact same circumstances as the Palestinians, that these Palestinians would more violent towards these Israelis as the Israelis are now against the Palestinians?

If so, could you explain why you think that?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Skeptic, are you saying that if the Palestinians lived under the exact same circumstances as the Israelis and the Israelis lived under the exact same circumstances as the Palestinians, that these Palestinians would more violent towards these Israelis as the Israelis are now against the Palestinians?

If so, could you explain why you think that?

We only have to look at pre-1918 Ottoman Palestine to see how that might play out.

Well, if we take helicopter gunships out of the equation.

[athon]

Oh, how simplistic it is to view the world as such. I wish I could simply label everybody with a single sticker that said 'yay' or 'nay'.

The Palestinians (who associate more on loose terms of religiogus and regional association than anything else) are not all homicidal maniacs out to kill all Jews, no more than all Americans are war-mongering lunatics who wish only to seek revenge on all Muslims. There are fanatics, sure. And there is a hard to control fanatical fringe who are responsible for much of the carnage.

The problem is, if we simplify it down to a two brain-cell operation, where there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' (a view the western world loves - indeed, IMHO, I feel that many nations can only define themselves in terms of an enemy), the issue will never be solved.

Sorry - I just cannot stand seeing the typical stereotyped reaction of 'all Palestinians / all Muslims...'.

Athon

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by athon
Oh, how simplistic it is to view the world as such. I wish I could simply label everybody with a single sticker that said 'yay' or 'nay'.

The Palestinians (who associate more on loose terms of religiogus and regional association than anything else) are not all homicidal maniacs out to kill all Jews, no more than all Americans are war-mongering lunatics who wish only to seek revenge on all Muslims. There are fanatics, sure. And there is a hard to control fanatical fringe who are responsible for much of the carnage.

The problem is, if we simplify it down to a two brain-cell operation, where there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' (a view the western world loves - indeed, IMHO, I feel that many nations can only define themselves in terms of an enemy), the issue will never be solved.

Sorry - I just cannot stand seeing the typical stereotyped reaction of 'all Palestinians / all Muslims...'.

Athon

Hey I can simplify it pretty darn easy.

Good guys - Soldiers that kill terror cell leaders and terrorists.
Good guys - Young men throwing rocks at tanks in protest.
Bad guys - Young men who blow up buses and pizza shops.
Bad guys - Soldiers who bulldoze houses of entire families for their son's actions.

O.k., well maybe it's not that simple...

[Skeptic]

This is such a naive idea. See, the Palestinians are desperate.

Bulls--t.

THE MORE ISRAEL GAVE THE PALESTINIANS, THE MORE TERROR THERE WAS. As long as israel controlled all the territories, there was relatively little terror. Every piece of land that was turned over to the palestinians instantly because a source of suicide bombers.

Now, if it was desperation that motivates the Palestinians, you'd expect MORE terror as they control LESS land and have LESS power, right? Instead, the exact opposite has happened: the more they got in the "peace process", the more terror there was even before this so-called "intifada"... right up to the point where Barak OFFERED ARAFAT A PALESTINIAN STATE AND WAS ANSWERED BY AN ALL-OUT WAR.

The fact that Barak's offer might have been unacceptable, from the palestinian point of view, might have been a reason for a counteroffer, or perhaps a protest by Arafat, or some other reasonable reaction. But what, exactly, would made the palestinians "desperate" with Barak's offer?

Surely the fact that they were offered a state in the first place, for the first time, by an israeli leader, should have made them hopeful that things were looking up--even if it was unacceptable as is? Surely, it was not a reason for (of all things!) desperation, but if anything, for optimism?

Clearly, the "their desperate" explanation simply doesn't fit the most basic facts of the situation. In fact, the palestinian behavior is the exact opposite of what a desperate person would do.

So what DOES drive the palestinians? Hope for the the destruction of israel. That--not "freedom", "equality", "the palestinian rights", or anything like that--is the point. After all, Arafat and Rantissi, who keep talking about the "opression" of the palestinians by the israelies, are thuggish, kleptocratic dictators themselves; they couldn't care less about such rights. That's just the excuse.

Once you understand this, you understand the situation. Yes, Barak's offer DID make the palestinians hopeful: hopeful that israel is weak enough that they can now destroy it with terror. HOPE FOR ANOTHER HOLOCAUST, NOT DESPERATION OF THE SITUATION, IS THE REAL ENGINE OF TERROR.

It's like Hitler: the more he was offered, the more agressive he became. Sure, there was lots of propaganda by Goebbles and Ribbentrop how Hitler really is just "seeking justice" and will not use force unless he is "desperate"--or as they put it, until he had "no choice" and this was his "last resort".

But that was all a lie: what REALLY drove Hitler was the fact that he believed that he could easily destroy the democracies, not any "desperation" by the Germans or by him personally.

Hitler nearly succeded. Let's hope the Palestinians don't.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, are you saying that if the Palestinians lived under the exact same circumstances as the Israelis and the Israelis lived under the exact same circumstances as the Palestinians, that these Palestinians would more violent towards these Israelis as the Israelis are now against the Palestinians?

Yup.

If so, could you explain why you think that?

For the same reason that if Bin Laden had control of the US's military arsenal instead of the other way around, he would butcher millions: the palestinian's oft-stated goal is israel's destruction and the butchery of the jews in a Jihad. Just read the Hamas' or the PLO's official charters, for starters, or the public declerations of their leaders.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Skeptic
THE MORE ISRAEL GAVE THE PALESTINIANS, THE MORE TERROR THERE WAS. As long as israel controlled all the territories, there was relatively little terror. Every piece of land that was turned over to the palestinians instantly because a source of suicide bombers.The logical conclusion to this train of thought is this: that the only way to end the terror is all-out Palestinian genocide.

I can see why the Palestinians would be desperate, if that's the conclusion they believe the Israelis are coming to.

And your situation-reversal isn't nearly thorough enough. Not only would the Palestinians and the Israelis have to exchange land and firepower, they'd have to exchange status with their neighbors. What if Syria, Jordan, etc. were all pro-Israeli? That's why I think Israel still has the kid gloves on - if they wiped all Palestinians off the face of the map, Israel's neighbors would wipe (or at least attempt to wipe) Israel off the map.

And then the US would feel obligated to step in, and once that happens, there's really only one conclusion... and it would have as a side effect the destruction of Israel.

Israel has three choices: make a deal with Palestine, tolerate terrorism forever, or start World War III. And it sounds like you believe that making a deal would end in the destruction of Israel. So no wonder they're willing to put up with terrorism - their only other choices result in their total destruction.

Personally, I think that there's a fourth option. But it involves a stronger UN than has ever existed.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This is such a naive idea. See, the Palestinians are desperate. They're cornered and using desperate measures. Israel, on the other side, are backed up the wazoo with money, soldiers, weapons, tanks, helicopters.. you name it. Anyone would be using desperate measures if they were in the Palestinians' position.

Your idea is naive. You believe that the Palestinians actually adhere to your beliefs and values and act out of pure desperation: not hatred, prejudice and/or fanaticism.

They are cornered after they tried to attack Israel. But it was still their decision to utilize terrorist tactics on a nation that was excercising great restraint.

If Israel was the monser you say, these terrorist attacks would have landed all of Palestine into annexation or the grave by now.


The Palestinians are backed too, by every Arab nation surrounding them in the ME. Once by the Soviet Union.

In the Palestinians position I'd go over and become an Israeli citizen. As I'd recognize a better life awaited for me in a liberal democracy then a psuedostate crypto-theocracy.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The logical conclusion to this train of thought is this: that the only way to end the terror is all-out Palestinian genocide.

Nope. That's a non sequitur actually.

I can see why the Palestinians would be desperate, if that's the conclusion they believe the Israelis are coming to.


They've always believed this but never for a good reason.

And your situation-reversal isn't nearly thorough enough. Not only would the Palestinians and the Israelis have to exchange land and firepower, they'd have to exchange status with their neighbors. What if Syria, Jordan, etc. were all pro-Israeli? That's why I think Israel still has the kid gloves on - if they wiped all Palestinians off the face of the map, Israel's neighbors would wipe (or at least attempt to wipe) Israel off the map.


Oh but what about all the US support?

And you really think that if they decided to wipe Israel off the map that the US would let them?

After what happened to the Taliban and Saddam's regime(one of the strongest in the ME) you should know they don't have a chance.

Lastly Israel if it really wanted to take off the gloves wouldn't have to use genocide. They could just annex the region or deport them all.

Or annex to region and deport all the Palestinians that refused to become Israeli citizens.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Nope. That's a non sequitur actually.Not at all.

Skeptic's assertion is that more concessions to the Palestinians = more terror by the Palestinians. The reverse of this is fewer concessions to the Palestinians = less terror by the Palestinians. So to reduce terror to zero, you would have to reduce concessions to zero... including the concession of continued existence.
Oh but what about all the US support?

And you really think that if they decided to wipe Israel off the map that the US would let them?I covered this in the post you responded to.


Lastly Israel if it really wanted to take off the gloves wouldn't have to use genocide. They could just annex the region or deport them all.

Or annex to region and deport all the Palestinians that refused to become Israeli citizens. Oh yeah, that'll end suicide bombings.

The Israelis can't end terrorism when they have the Palestinians in a nice little bottle (okay, two nice little bottles) - what luck are they going to have if they force them to wander over to, oh, say, Iran... or worse, make them Israeli citizens?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]

It's like Hitler: the more he was offered, the more agressive he became. Sure, there was lots of propaganda by Goebbles and Ribbentrop how Hitler really is just "seeking justice" and will not use force unless he is "desperate"--or as they put it, until he had "no choice" and this was his "last resort".

But that was all a lie: what REALLY drove Hitler was the fact that he believed that he could easily destroy the democracies, not any "desperation" by the Germans or by him personally.

Hitler nearly succeded. Let's hope the Palestinians don't.

Funny how you compare the Palistinians (a entire group of people) to Hitler (an individual) instead of comparing them to Germans as a whole. Would it be unfair to paint all Germans with the Hitler brush? People seem to do that with Palistinians. Or is it Arafat pulling the strings. Wh/o him would you accept the Palistinians?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by athon
Oh, how simplistic it is to view the world as such. I wish I could simply label everybody with a single sticker that said 'yay' or 'nay'.

(snip)

Sorry - I just cannot stand seeing the typical stereotyped reaction of 'all Palestinians / all Muslims...'.

Athon

Agreed. Riddle me this, which statement is false?

- The Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel.

- The Palestinians are a peace-loving people.

It's a trick question, both are false. The major problem I have with Skeptic's arguments is the hyperbole that he spews and the hyperbole he argues against.

From his first post:
We keep hearing from lots of people here how evil the israelies are for "indiscriminately" killing palestinians, and how they are no different than the Hamas.

Well, there are some people who do believe there exists potentially innocent Palestinians in the world, and to hurt/maim/kill them because of collateral damage is wrong.

Now those same people, if they are thinking even a little bit critically, should also recognize that the Palestinian organizations which sponser and support terrorism are also wrong.

Israel different than Hamas? In many, many substantive ways, yes. But, both are doing things people generally consider wrong.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Or annex to region and deport all the Palestinians that refused to become Israeli citizens.

If Isreal was to completely annex the occupied territories, I doubt very much that they would want to assimilate any Palestinians.

You just dont get it do you. Isreal wants the land. It does not want the people. Isreal is an aparthied state and wants a few million Arabs about as much as Hendrik Verwoerd wanted black people in South Africa.

[Tmy]

"Situation reveresed"........ This remined me of that 80's cold war movie RED DAWN, starrring Patrick Swayse and a bunch of other young actors who became big. Anyhoo it was the story of a Colorado town that was occupied by invading forces (The evil Soviets).. Concentration camps and all sorts of fun stuff. So a bunch of high school kids start fighting back using guerilla tactics. Of cousre you cheered for the american kids for fighting back and killing the bad guys. In reality they were little nore than terrorists. But its all about a point of view.

Just like the mid east. You can turn a blind eye to your teams misdeeds because you will always find them justified.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Not at all.

Skeptic's assertion is that more concessions to the Palestinians = more terror by the Palestinians. The reverse of this is fewer concessions to the Palestinians = less terror by the Palestinians. So to reduce terror to zero, you would have to reduce concessions to zero... including the concession of continued existence.

Nope his assertion was that Israel shows far greater restraint then the Palestinians would have.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh yeah, that'll end suicide bombings.

The Israelis can't end terrorism when they have the Palestinians in a nice little bottle (okay, two nice little bottles) - what luck are they going to have if they force them to wander over to, oh, say, Iran... or worse, make them Israeli citizens?

Israel would have more control over the region. Also deported Palestians would have a harder time of getting in.

You are missing the point though, this is about things Israel could do besides genocide *if* it really wanted to take the kid gloves off.

[DialecticMaterialist]

If Isreal was to completely annex the occupied territories, I doubt very much that they would want to assimilate any Palestinians.

You just dont get it do you. Isreal wants the land. It does not want the people. Isreal is an aparthied state and wants a few million Arabs about as much as Hendrik Verwoerd wanted black people in South Africa.

There is racism and prejudice in Israel. I agree. But at least Arabs are allowed to live in Israel, have rights, can vote and practive their religion.

This is more then I can say about any jews living in a Muslim country.

Technically they'd have even more freedom in racist Israel than in authoritarian Palestine. Just as a trotskyist, for all the flak he'd get, would have more freedom in the US then in the Soviet Union.

In Israel a Palestian can vote, walk outside without a veil, succeed, as a woman, and hold to religions other then fundamentalist Islam. And Israeli parents,(Jews and Arabs) don't have to worry about public schools turning their kids into suicide bimbers.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Nope his assertion was that Israel shows far greater restraint then the Palestinians would have. I was referring to a later assertion of his, to wit, "THE MORE ISRAEL GAVE THE PALESTINIANS, THE MORE TERROR THERE WAS."

Israel would have more control over the region. Also deported Palestians would have a harder time of getting in.More control over the region yes, but less control over the people. The Palestinians wouldn't be outsiders any more, they'd be citizens, and the ones most likely to commit terror will be the first ones in line to be sworn in, if they're smart. And anyway, I don't think the Palestinians are going to let Israel simply annex the region without a fight, in which case it's not called an "annexation" any more, it's called a "war".

You are missing the point though, this is about things Israel could do besides genocide *if* it really wanted to take the kid gloves off.I do see it. I'm just disputing it. I just don't see any way that Israel taking the kid gloves off can lead to anything but genocide... of themselves, for sure, and maybe of the Palestinians. It only depends on how quickly Israel's neighbors mobilize against them.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Agreed. Riddle me this, which statement is false?

- The Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel.

- The Palestinians are a peace-loving people.

It's a trick question, both are false. The major problem I have with Skeptic's arguments is the hyperbole that he spews and the hyperbole he argues against.


You don't believe the PA wants to destroy Israel despite teaching it in their schoolbooks and to grow up to be suicide bombers.

http://memri.org/book/MEMRI_Book_PGS.pdf
Pages of important interest.
page 14
page 20
page 28
page 43
page 64



Israel different than Hamas? In many, many substantive ways, yes. But, both are doing things people generally consider wrong.

It seems any attempt Israel takes to defend them self’s is considered wrong.

[Earthborn]

THE MORE ISRAEL GAVE THE PALESTINIANS, THE MORE TERROR THERE WAS.An extraordinary claim, and as you are a skeptic, I assume you can back it up with some evidence... Maybe an accurate timeline showing the peace deals and the terror attacks combined?

Now, if it was desperation that motivates the Palestinians, you'd expect MORE terror as they control LESS land and have LESS power, right?No, I don't think so. The desperation of the Palestinians is generations old, starting when many were chased out by force from their old cities and towns. Their desperation is perpetuated by kurfews, roadblocks and many other problems they face everyday. All that does not change when one of their leaders choses to sign (or not to sign) a piece of paper.But what, exactly, would made the palestinians "desperate" with Barak's offer?Although their desperation isn't caused by this offer, I can see why it isn't relieved by it:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html
In fact, the palestinian behavior is the exact opposite of what a desperate person would do.Please stop pretending that Palestinians all behave as if they are a single individual, motivated by a single goal. You know it isn't true.

If we are to assume you meant that 'terrorism is the exact oppostie of what a desperate people would do', then please provide some evidence of that extraordinary claim.Yes, Barak's offer DID make the palestinians hopeful: hopeful that israel is weak enough that they can now destroy it with terror.Follow the link above to see how weak Israel would have been against the Palestinian state. If you don't trust that (Israeli) site, provide some maps of how Barak's offer really works out.But that was all a lie: what REALLY drove Hitler was the fact that he believed that he could easily destroy the democracies, not any "desperation" by the Germans or by him personally.So are you claiming that Hitler would have been just as successful without the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles? Surely, as a skeptic, you can provide some extraordinary evidence of that claim.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
An extraordinary claim, and as you are a skeptic, I assume you can back it up with some evidence... Maybe an accurate timeline showing the peace deals and the terror attacks combined?


Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks Since 1967

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967 16
1968 39
1969 32
1970 17
1971 27
1972 1
1973 3
1974 16
1975 26
1976 5
1977 41
1978 12
1979 14
1980 10
1981 5
1982 2
1983 6
1984 7
1985 14
1986 7
1987 5
1988 14
1989 32
1990 23
1991 26
1992 39
1993 64 (38 before Oslo, 26 after Oslo)
1994 73
1995 52
1996 87
1997 31
1998 13
1999* 1
2000
2001 198
2002 436

The number of people killed by Palestinian terrorists in the five years immediately after the Oslo accord (256) was greater than the number killed in the 15 years preceding the agreement (216). During the six years of the first uprising (Dec. 9, 1987 to Sep. 9, 1993), 172 people were murdered.

Note: Figures include Israeli civilians and security personnel, and foreigners killed in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel and the territories. They do not include Palestinians killed by other Palestinians on suspicion of cooperating with Israel. The date of September 9, 1993, is used to mark the beginning of the Oslo process since it was on that date that PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin exchanged letters in which Arafat renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. These letters were incorporated into the Oslo Accords, which were signed on the White House lawn four days later.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#g

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/images/maps/terrchart.gif



No, I don't think so. The desperation of the Palestinians is generations old, starting when many were chased out by force from their old cities and towns.

The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker

You don't believe the PA wants to destroy Israel despite teaching it in their schoolbooks and to grow up to be suicide bombers.

(references cut..)

It seems any attempt Israel takes to defend them self’s is considered wrong.

I don't really want to defend the PA, and you're probably right, it would delight in the destruction of Israel. However, this does not imply that all Palestinians think the same way.

I would even agree if you said "most", "many", "a lot", or maybe even "almost all", but I can't agree with anyone who paints any group of people with such a broad brush as "all".

It's like saying Bush is a Republican, therefore I, as a citizen of the USA, am also Republican. Balderdash.

That's why I don't agree with Skeptic on this subject.

Wrong when Israel defends itself?

I consider it wrong when any innocent dies.

There exists innocent Palestinians. These innocent Palestinians sometimes get killed. This is wrong.

There are certain levels of wrongness I'm willing to tolerate. Sometimes innocents die to protect a greater good. Evidently, you think Israel protecting itself is a greater good by which justifies the collateral damage.

Honestly, I don't think bombing Palestinian leaders (and the collateral damage that results) is an effective way of protecting itself.

And, again, you're painting with too broad a brush. "Any attempt" to defend Israel is wrong? Certainly not. Signing the Oslo Peace accords wasn't wrong.

Making claims about "any", "all".... This is a classic composition fallacy.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons



I would even agree if you said "most", "many", "a lot", or maybe even "almost all", but I can't agree with anyone who paints any group of people with such a broad brush as "all".


I’m sure there are some Palestinian’s that want peace unfortunately, they are a minority.




Wrong when Israel defends itself?

I consider it wrong when any innocent dies.

There exists innocent Palestinians. These innocent Palestinians sometimes get killed. This is wrong.

There are certain levels of wrongness I'm willing to tolerate. Sometimes innocents die to protect a greater good. Evidently, you think Israel protecting itself is a greater good by which justifies the collateral damage.


Israel doesn’t target innocent Palestinians however the Palestinians do aim to target innocent Israelis.
Also the militia and terrorist use civilians as body shields which often leaves the Israelis in a no win situation and there is no way to determine which ones killed or innocent civilians or those just dieing for the cause so to speak.



Honestly, I don't think bombing Palestinian leaders (and the collateral damage that results) is an effective way of protecting itself.

And, again, you're painting with too broad a brush. "Any attempt" to defend Israel is wrong? Certainly not. Signing the Oslo Peace accords wasn't wrong.

Making claims about "any", "all".... This is a classic composition fallacy.


If these Palestinian leaders are ordering the deaths of innocent Israelis then it is an effective way of protecting itself.

[Jedi Knight]

If Israelis were categorized as animals like the American Bald Eagle, they would be on the most-endangered species list.

It should be illegal to kill any Jew because of their rareity on the planet.

JK

[kittynh]

The Palestinian family I know abhores suicide bombers, and considers them a real obstruction to peace. Not the only one mind you, the Isrealis have some whacks too.

and hey, there are cases in history where passion was ruled by reason! Good old Ghandi, not perfect, but a good try! And I remember hearing a speech by Bishop Tutu, he was calm reasonable and happy. He said he was constantly asked why he didn't advocate violence, how he could remain civilized in spite of all the injustices and horrors. He said, "because I am civilized. Also, I know in my heart that the days of aparthied are numbered. Only be behaving better than our oppressors can we hope to bring that day about as soon as possible/"

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker
I’m sure there are some Palestinian’s that want peace unfortunately, they are a minority.

Israel doesn’t target innocent Palestinians however the Palestinians do aim to target innocent Israelis.
Also the militia and terrorist use civilians as body shields which often leaves the Israelis in a no win situation and there is no way to determine which ones killed or innocent civilians or those just dieing for the cause so to speak.

If these Palestinian leaders are ordering the deaths of innocent Israelis then it is an effective way of protecting itself. [/B]

So, there exists the possibility of innocent Palestinians, agreed?

Yes, Israel targets non-innocents. I still think it's wrong if innocents die, even if the intention is "honorable". Call me wacky if you must.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


So, there exists the possibility of innocent Palestinians, agreed?

Yes, Israel targets non-innocents. I still think it's wrong if innocents die, even if the intention is "honorable". Call me wacky if you must.

What do you think would happen if Israel laid down its arms?



Or what do you think would happen if the Palestinians laid down their arms?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Baker



Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks Since 1967

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967 16
1968 39
1969 32
1970 17
1971 27
1972 1
1973 3
1974 16
1975 26
1976 5
1977 41
1978 12
1979 14
1980 10
1981 5
1982 2
1983 6
1984 7
1985 14
1986 7
1987 5
1988 14
1989 32
1990 23
1991 26
1992 39
1993 64 (38 before Oslo, 26 after Oslo)
1994 73
1995 52
1996 87
1997 31
1998 13
1999* 1
2000
2001 198
2002 436

The number of people killed by Palestinian terrorists in the five years immediately after the Oslo accord (256) was greater than the number killed in the 15 years preceding the agreement (216). During the six years of the first uprising (Dec. 9, 1987 to Sep. 9, 1993), 172 people were murdered.

Note: Figures include Israeli civilians and security personnel, and foreigners killed in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel and the territories. They do not include Palestinians killed by other Palestinians on suspicion of cooperating with Israel. The date of September 9, 1993, is used to mark the beginning of the Oslo process since it was on that date that PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin exchanged letters in which Arafat renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. These letters were incorporated into the Oslo Accords, which were signed on the White House lawn four days later.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#g
[/B]

Something about the list of fatalities strikes me as a little strange. It says there was 1 fatality due to Palestinian terror attacks in 1972. But, there were 11 killed in Munich at the Olympics.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/munich.html
Was that list derived from fatalities in Israel only?

Also, while the numbers are saddening, I see there's no mention in this thread of the Israeli massacre in Lebanon the numbers of which are higher than your lists total.
http://www.ssnp.com/Holocaust/sabra1.htm

One night I spent several hours chatting with a Palestinian woman. She was a little girl in the camps and her parents were murdered by the Israelis. That was the root of her hatred, not just a generic hatred of Jews.

[Baker]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Something about the list of fatalities strikes me as a little strange. It says there was 1 fatality due to Palestinian terror attacks in 1972. But, there were 11 killed in Munich at the Olympics.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/munich.html
Was that list derived from fatalities in Israel only?

That's is correct it list Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel and the territories only.


Also, while the numbers are saddening, I see there's no mention in this thread of the Israeli massacre in Lebanon the numbers of which are higher than your lists total.
http://www.ssnp.com/Holocaust/sabra1.htm

One night I spent several hours chatting with a Palestinian woman. She was a little girl in the camps and her parents were murdered by the Israelis. That was the root of her hatred, not just a generic hatred of Jews.

The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred in Lebanon Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with large reserves of ammunition.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Baker
The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred in Lebanon Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with large reserves of ammunition.

So it's O.k. to kill hundreds of women and children as long as you kill some terrorists as well?

Glad to see Israeli policy has remained consistent these last 21 years.

To be fair, the PLOs has as well, but that wasn't my original point.

[DialecticMaterialist]

More control over the region yes, but less control over the people. The Palestinians wouldn't be outsiders any more, they'd be citizens , and the ones most likely to commit terror will be the first ones in line to be sworn in, if they're smart. And anyway, I don't think the Palestinians are going to let Israel simply annex the region without a fight, in which case it's not called an "annexation" any more, it's called a "war".

They may let Israel annex, those who fight too much would probably be arrested or deported.

Likewise control over the region by its very nature gives control over the people. You're logic on this issue seems mixed, as if Israel controlled the region via politically, they could send in special opreatives and conduct investigations at will. Many Palestinians may even leak information to them.

I do see it. I'm just disputing it.

Then dispute it, don't evade it.


I just don't see any way that Israel taking the kid gloves off can lead to anything but genocide... of themselves, for sure, and maybe of the Palestinians. It only depends on how quickly Israel's neighbors mobilize against them.

I've already gone over that, you're objection simply is: "it would be very difficult" and "they'd go to war over being annexed or deported" which means they would not go to war over genocide?

Of course they would, more so then if they were annexed or deported. Which makes your suggested path even more unlikely then mine if Israel took its gloves off.

[Beleth]

DM -

I think a lot of our miscommunication stems from the term "take the kid gloves off". When I use it, I mean "follow a course of action which will end the terrorist attacks from the Palestinians".

There are two paths they can take to reach this end. The difference between these two paths is the statement "the Palestinians want to wipe the Israelis off the face of the earth, and the Israelis know this". Since this is Skeptic's thread, and since he believes this assumption is true, this is the only path I have been going down in this discussion.

So what options do the Israelis have?

Option 1: Kill the Palestinians first.
Result 1: Palestinian terrorism ends. Israel's other neighbors get offended, attack Israel. US gets offended, attacks Israel's neighbors. Israel ends up in worse condition than before.
Desirability of Option 1: Zero.

Option 2: Annex the region, deport every Palestinian.
Result 2: Offensive Palestinians will not leave; they will escalate the terrorism. Inoffensive Palestinians will go... but where? One of Israel's neighbors? Those neighbors will not like that.
Desirability of Option 2: Since it does not end the terrorism, this option is ineffective, and therefore the desirability is zero.

Option 3: Annex the region, deport offensive Palestinians, make citizens out of acceptable Palestinians.
Result 3: Acceptable Palestinians, by the wipe-the-Israelies assumption we are making, do not exist. So this is just a special case of Option 2.
Desirability of Option 3: See Option 2.

My point is this:
No course of action the Israelis can pursue will be beneficial to them as long as it is assumed that the Palestinians, as a people, desire their genocide.
At least, no course of action which has been brought up here, or that I have ever been made aware of.

If you don't assume this, then the doors are wide open... but that is a discussion for another thread.

[Malachi151]

Solution: Draw the boarder as they were offered where Palastine got like 98% of the territory it wanted, and give the Palastinaians a huge concession payment, not in cash, but in assistance in building a very nice country. Then the UN says, that there will be zero tolerance from either side and all Palastinian/Israeli conflict in an international matter and will handled by a zero tolerance international authority.

Even killing all the Palastinians would not resolve the conflict as other Arab countries would then be angered and take up the fight.

Getting rid of Israel altogether would resolve the problem, but its would not be fair, so now the world is stuck with the stupid hell. Israel should never have been formed in the firts place.

If anyone should go though it is the Jews, even though I think the Israelis are a more civilized people and have a "better" culture, it sobvious tthat they are a sore spot in the middle of a vast Arab world.

I think that one day that either all of the Middle East will be taken over by the Israelis and Western powers, or Israel will be gone. Its just too much conflict havint both together.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Solution: Draw the boarder as they were offered where Palastine got like 98% of the territory it wanted, and give the Palastinaians a huge concession payment, not in cash, but in assistance in building a very nice countryI think that this would be a good idea too, except that the Palestinians really really want that 2%. It's the 2% that they weren't offered that had the useful bits to keep a nation sustainable.

It's like making an offer on half a duplex and having the current owner, who lives in the other half of the duplex, say "You can have that half of the duplex except for the electrical wiring, the plumbing, and the gas lines. But you can have the other 98%. That should be good enough, right?"

That's what the Palestinian spokesperson I heard said, anyway. Of course, if you don't believe him, then all bets are off.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Beleth
DM -

I think a lot of our miscommunication stems from the term "take the kid gloves off". When I use it, I mean "follow a course of action which will end the terrorist attacks from the Palestinians".

There are two paths they can take to reach this end. The difference between these two paths is the statement "the Palestinians want to wipe the Israelis off the face of the earth, and the Israelis know this". Since this is Skeptic's thread, and since he believes this assumption is true, this is the only path I have been going down in this discussion.

So what options do the Israelis have?

Option 1: Kill the Palestinians first.
Result 1: Palestinian terrorism ends. Israel's other neighbors get offended, attack Israel. US gets offended, attacks Israel's neighbors. Israel ends up in worse condition than before.
Desirability of Option 1: Zero.

Option 2: Annex the region, deport every Palestinian.
Result 2: Offensive Palestinians will not leave; they will escalate the terrorism. Inoffensive Palestinians will go... but where? One of Israel's neighbors? Those neighbors will not like that.
Desirability of Option 2: Since it does not end the terrorism, this option is ineffective, and therefore the desirability is zero.

Option 3: Annex the region, deport offensive Palestinians, make citizens out of acceptable Palestinians.
Result 3: Acceptable Palestinians, by the wipe-the-Israelies assumption we are making, do not exist. So this is just a special case of Option 2.
Desirability of Option 3: See Option 2.

My point is this:
No course of action the Israelis can pursue will be beneficial to them as long as it is assumed that the Palestinians, as a people, desire their genocide.
At least, no course of action which has been brought up here, or that I have ever been made aware of.

If you don't assume this, then the doors are wide open... but that is a discussion for another thread.


You bring up some very thoughtful annalistic points here.
My personal view draws to the question I gave specious_reasons.

What do you think would happen if Israel laid down its arms?

Israel would cease to exist.

or what do you think would happen if the Palestinians laid down their arms.

There would be peace.

[kittynh]

and don't forget what's at the heart of all this....
religion.

Everyone it seems talks about the area like it is something more than dirt and sky. Even Whitney Houston recently was visiting and said it's like "going home". Take away the religious aspect, and have a bunch of atheists fighting over this same patch. Things would be worked out in a jiffy, because hey, without an after life people want to get living NOW.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Baker
What do you think would happen if Israel laid down its arms?

Israel would cease to exist.Ah ha, what I think. Okay. I think that Palestine is not really out to cause Israel to cease to exist, but I think that that's such a pervasive belief that Israel is unable to think any other way.

If Israel laid down its arms, and said "Okay, Palestine, what do you want? Okay, it's yours", the rest of the Mideast (after maybe a week of stunned silence and cheering) would start plotting on how best to take advantage of this.

It's this HUUUUUGE Mexican standoff.
Palestine has its BB gun aimed at Israel, and Israel has its Uzi aimed at Palestine.
But the rest of the Mideast have their collective AK47's aimed at Israel. And the US has their Blackhawks and MOABs aimed at the Mideast.
And the rest of the world has what? Their checkbooks, I guess, aimed at the US. And the US either doesn't realize this, or doesn't care.

And we're all waiting to see whether Israel pulls her trigger, or puts her gun down.

or what do you think would happen if the Palestinians laid down their arms.

There would be peace. If the Palestinians laid down their arms, then Israel would lay down their arms afterward, and we have the same situation as before, only delayed for a couple of months while Israel verifies that Palestine really has laid down their arms. Then, once they did that, they'd lay down their arms, and their neighbors would start plotting, etc.


Does this put Israel in a no-win situation? Yes it does.


Here's what I think is the best way out, in terms of further bloodshed.

Have the UN undo what it did 55 years ago. Declare the area of the world currently occupied by Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank as a nation-less zone. In other words, have the UN annex it. It's not Israel, it's not Palestine, it's... I don't know... Godland. Write a new constitution for it. The government would be elected by members of the UN. Penalties would be put in place to make invading it be undesirable.

It needs to be a place where every religion which claims ownership of it is tolerated and glorified. It just does.

The Israelis won't like it. The Palestinians won't like it. But they'll be alive, and they'll be secure.


This is not the only other way out, of course. Going back to the Mexican Standoff analogy, the other way to make Israel lay down her arms is to disarm their neighbors. Make the rest of the Mideast, ignoring Palestine for the moment, safe for Israel.

This solution involves more bloodshed but puts all the power in the hands of the US instead of the UN. It would start by, oh, neutralizing the two most US-unfriendly countries in the region: Afghanistan and Iraq. And then move on to others... probably Iran and Syria.

Sound like anyone's plan you know?

[Beleth]

Kittynh, you are right about this whole thing being about religion. But I don't think that it's possible to take the religion aspect out of it... to make them all atheists, in other words.

These are people willing to kill and be killed for religions that are purportedly all about peace. That's about as irrational as you can get. It's definitely crosses the line of "things you can be talked out of".

No, you can't just sit a religious fanatic down and talk them into atheism. It has to be done by force, and by as neutral a force as possible. And the most neutral political force we have in the world right now is the UN. Unfortunately.

[Skeptic]

Funny how you compare the Palistinians (a entire group of people) to Hitler (an individual) instead of comparing them to Germans as a whole.

Oh, all right. So the palestinian goal is the same as the nazi goal, not just Hitler's. Satisfied?

[Earthborn]

Oh, all right. So the palestinian goal is the same as the nazi goal, not just Hitler's. Satisfied?No, of course not. Now you compare an entire people with a very specific political group. After all, not all Germans were Nazis.

If you say that 'goal of Hamas' is the same as the Nazis, it would be more to the point, but still wrong. Instead of comparing people you disagree with with the Nazis, perhaps it is a better idea to find out what these people are actually thinking and critizing their ideas on their merits, instead of building a obvious strawman. Comparing people to the Nazis is always a lame argument.

I'll make it easy for you, here's the
website of Hamas (http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/cat_index_4.shtml) (At least it is according to this anti terrorist website (http://www.bombsecurity.com/extremists.html))

Check out the videos "A video that exposes some Zionist practices" and "BBC Shows Israelis Preventing Aid for Elderly Woman in Jenin" if you have broadband.

Here's the website of Hizbollah (http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm)
Is there no one willing to give them a faster server :)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Funny how you compare the Palistinians (a entire group of people) to Hitler (an individual) instead of comparing them to Germans as a whole.

Oh, all right. So the palestinian goal is the same as the nazi goal, not just Hitler's. Satisfied?

LOL. So you are saying that the Palestinians are Palestinian supremacists who want to spread their system and way of live all over the Middle East?

This comparison makes no sense.

If anything Israel is like Nazi Germany. Zionism, which is what Israel is born out of, if a form of Fascism. There were two main groups of Jews before WWII, Zionisnt Jews and Socialist Jews. The Socilaists/Bolsheviks didn't want the formation of Israel and called it giving in to nationalism and a form of Jewish fascism.

The Zionists were Jewish nationalists that wanted a purely Jewish state ruled by Jewish ideology and Jewish law. They are the ones that want to keep a pure Jewish nation, just like Germany did want to keep a "pure Aryan" i.e. White Christian country.

[Earthborn]

If anything Israel is like Nazi Germany. Zionism, which is what Israel is born out of, if a form of Fascism.Read my above post...

That goes for you too! :)

[Baker]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


So it's O.k. to kill hundreds of women and children as long as you kill some terrorists as well?

Glad to see Israeli policy has remained consistent these last 21 years.

To be fair, the PLOs has as well, but that wasn't my original point.

That wasn’t what I was saying which I’m sure you knew but couldn’t resist kicking in an anti-Israel comment in Israel wasn’t responsible yet its always used to smear them.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, of course not. Now you compare an entire people with a very specific political group. After all, not all Germans were Nazis.

If you say that 'goal of Hamas' is the same as the Nazis, it would be more to the point, but still wrong. Instead of comparing people you disagree with with the Nazis, perhaps it is a better idea to find out what these people are actually thinking and critizing their ideas on their merits, instead of building a obvious strawman. Comparing people to the Nazis is always a lame argument.

I'll make it easy for you, here's the
website of Hamas (http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/cat_index_4.shtml) (At least it is according to this anti terrorist website (http://www.bombsecurity.com/extremists.html))

Check out the videos "A video that exposes some Zionist practices" and "BBC Shows Israelis Preventing Aid for Elderly Woman in Jenin" if you have broadband.

Here's the website of Hizbollah (http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm)
Is there no one willing to give them a faster server :)



Here is a BBC report on Hamas which show there real intention.
Notice the bold text.
Even an anti-Israel news network as the BBC had to admit their true intentions.

It also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine - most of which has been contained within Israel's borders since its creation in 1948.

The grass-roots organisation - with a political and a military wing - has an unknown number of active members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers.

Up to 40,000 people rallied in Gaza in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary where they heard the group's blind and paralysed spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, predict Israel's destruction by the year 2025.

"The march of martyrs will move forward... Resistance will move forward. Jihad will continue, and martyrdom operations will continue until the full liberation of Palestine," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/1654510.stm