Israel lost war first time

Originally posted by xmotex
But frankly I don't think for a second Hezbollah is deluded enough to think they have a snowball's chance in hell of displacing Israel. IMHO Hezbollah's current primary aim is to increase their political power in Lebanon, and to do so by positioning themselves as the only defenders of Lebanon from foreign agression.

One of the Iranian interests in Hezbullah is that Hezbullah is an Iranian front against Israel. The day of attack on Iran or the day in which sanctions against Iran become too stringent, Hezbullah will be used to attack Israel with what we saw in the past month (we did not see the use of the Zilzal missiles who are capable of hitting Tel-Aviv, Beer Sheva and even Dimona). Iran supplied Hezbullah with weapons not for the sake of Hezbullah's political strength but as a front line against Israel on the day of their choosing. Iran built for Hezbullah huge, underground, interlinking command and ammunition bunkers for not for political use but for offensive use against Israel on the day of their calling.

Again, propaganda aside, DO not allow yourself to be fooled that Shebaa farms or 3 Lebanese prisoners are the reasons for Hezbullah's aggressions.
Islamists believe that Israel can be forced to its knees not through Hezbullah alone but with Syria and Iran acting together Israel will be overwhelmed.

Hezbullah's abduction of the two soldiers was performed for a few reasons.
1- They knew that they were able to pull it off without a large backlash (they were wrong).
2- They wanted to assist the Palestinians.
3- They wanted to show that they have the capability to stike at Israel and save face from their last failed attempt.
4- Iran wanted to shift the focus of attention from their nuclear ambitions to another issue (which failed), raise the sakes and show that they have power in the middle east by using a form of blackmail.

Originally posted by brimstone735
I would hardly say they lost, considering that Israel caused nearly 3 billion dollars in damage, and would have continued had the the UN - with the the backing of the very people in this room - not stepped in and stopped it.

It's war, and people died.

To talk about who won is silly, and really goes to show how lacking in perspective the notion of "winning " is. And yet, to have an entire thread dedicated, with seemingly nationalist pride, of how their team "won" is kind of sick.

I mean, Jesus, all I'm reading for weeks from you guys is "how horrible the Israelis are", and "how they need to stop", and "how it's unfair", and the "poor Palestinians". All of that is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

But, now that there's a cease fire, the very same people are GLOATING about winning! As though Larry Bird dunked a free throw, just as the buzzer rang.

great response here. props goes out to you.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

When you say let the Palestinians have a state and give the Palestinians the return to their home after 60 years what you are actually doing is giving them a state and then another state by demographically flooding Israel with millions of refugees, their children, grand children and great grandchildren.

Scuse me, but if Jews are allowed to return someplace after being gone for 2000 years I'm pretty sure that 60 years of being away shouldn't be a problem. They belong there just as much as Jews do. Israel IS a state of refugees itself from Europe, Russia and all over the world. Who are you to decide what should and shouldn't be if they have their freedom and their own state. Thats their problem if they are over crowded isn't it? The Democratic and non-racist state of Israel should not be worrying about too many Arabs in the Palestine as they are smack-dab in the middle of an arab majority continent if Im not mistaken. I just checked a map and yes theres Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt next door..Yeah pretty sure those are Arab countries. Did Israel forget where they parked the car again?

Pieman,

Again you are missing the point. Probably from a lack of knowledge regarding the issues of the conflict and the negotiation stances of both sides.

Israel has no problem with all the Arabs of the world packing into Palestinian territory after an agreement is reached.
The problem is not refugees returning to the new Palestinian state. The problem is bringing Palestinians into ISRAEL. That is what the Palestinians want:
1- A new state in West Bank and Gaza.
2- To flood Israel with Palestinians as well.

This, in essence, creates 2 Palestinian states not one while demolishing Israel as a Jewish state.

Now do you understand????

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Israel has no problem with all the Arabs of the world packing into Palestinian territory after an agreement is reached.
The problem is not refugees returning to the new Palestinian state. The problem is bringing Palestinians into ISRAEL. That is what the Palestinians want:
1- A new state in West Bank and Gaza.
2- To flood Israel with Palestinians as well.

This, in essence, creates 2 Palestinian states not one while demolishing Israel as a Jewish state.

Now do you understand????

Well since Palestine is split up into 2 areas I guess it would be 2 seperate states split in half with Israel running right down the middle yes. Demolishing Israel? How would that be if Palestinians are within Palestinian borders?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Well since Palestine is split up into 2 areas I guess it would be 2 seperate states split in half with Israel running right down the middle yes. Demolishing Israel? How would that be if Palestinians are within Palestinian borders?

I'll say it really slowly . . .

In 1948 during the Israeli war of independance, around 600,000 'Palestinian' refugees left what became Israel (pre-1967 borders) after the war. The Palestinians leadership are admant that those who left in 1948 have the right to return to their homes with their children, grandchildren and great-grand children - INSIDE THE PRE-1967 BORDERS OF ISRAEL. This is what they call 'right to return'.

It is not sufficient that a Palestinian state be erected in the West Bank and Gaza but they also wanted millions of Palestinians to enter PRE-1967 ISRAEL as full Israeli citizens.

Therefore, they want 2 states and not one in parallel to the destruction of Israel through a massive demographic shift.

This is the primary issue that was blocking any agreement through negotiation with the 'moderate' Palestinian leadership (pre-Hamas).

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
This, in essence, creates 2 Palestinian states not one while demolishing Israel as a Jewish state.

Now do you understand????

So only Jews can live in Israel according to you? Well thats just dandy. How would you react if say somewhere like Britain said, "Sorry, no Jews allowed. We're a Christian/Muslim state". There would be complete and utter outrage.

So why is it OK for Israel to discriminate based on people's religion and ethnicity? Why is Israel allowed to do what no other country is? Why do you expect us to put up with a double standard?

Also why is the right of return such a problem? No one prevented Jewish refugees returning to their homes after WW2. So why can Israel prevent people returning to the land they rightfully own?

What do you think about the illegal settlements in the occupied territories? Not all of them were dismantled in Gaza and practically all of them are intended to remain from any West Bank disengagement. Why is Israel allowed to steal Palestinian land?

[edit on 17/8/06 by subz]

If there ever is an agreement, a big "if" mind you, to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict it will probably be some sort of agreement that neither side "likes". By that I mean each side will have to make concessions to the other, that they currently claim they will not do, in exchange for a lasting peace to be had. The two state solution is the direction to go: one a Jewish Israel and the other a Palestinian State for the first time living in peace and security side by side. Theses are the major stumbling blocks:

1. Right of return into Israel proper by Palestinians.
2. Pre 1967 borders will have to be modified slightly for more secure borders.
3. Status of Jerusalem.

The two biggest ones are 1 and 3. Both sides are at polar opposites on these and it will take both sides swallowing their pride to make them agreeable to each other. Small modfications of the borders will not be deal breakers.

Probably the Palestinians will have to give up the right of return to Israel proper and in exchange Israel will have to give up East Jerusalem. Both sides would rather drink sand than currently give that to the other side. Without compromise, the status quo stays in place. Much as both sides would like the full loaf of bread, they need to settle for half. I know that "to the victors belong the spoils" but for peace to be acheived, concessions on both sides will be mandatory. Unfortuantely both sides seem to lack the leaders with the vision and clout to make the "half a loaf" deal with the other. It will take strong leaders on BOTH sides to make any real lasting deal.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

I have no qualms whatsoever about a jewish state. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

If you have no qualms about a "Jewish state" than you can see why the full right of return to Israel proper by Palestinian Refugees would change Israel into something other than a majority Jewish State.

So again, are you for Israel, the world's only Jewish State, within it's pre 1967 borders, to have a right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

I have no qualms whatsoever about a jewish state. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

If you have no qualms about a "Jewish state" than you can see why the full right of return to Israel proper by Palestinian Refugees would change Israel into something other than a majority Jewish State.

So again, are you for Israel, the world's only Jewish State, within it's pre 1967 borders, to have a right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?

I still don't see what the 2 seperate countries with independent borders have to do with anything. Unless you are both talking about if the Palestinians return what will happen to the land that they own that Israelis are now on? Thats something you will have to reckon with sooner or later, and sooner would be better then later when it comes to property and property values. Obviously compensation will have to be made and concessions will have to be given on both sides. Maybe give them some more land and divert 10 years worth of US aid to Israel in their direction to help get them on their feet and recompense them in that way. With all the new investments that would pour into Israel I doubt it would be missed if the economy were booming due to peace.

Originally posted by subz

So only Jews can live in Israel according to you? Well thats just dandy. How would you react if say somewhere like Britain said, "Sorry, no Jews allowed. We're a Christian/Muslim state". There would be complete and utter outrage.

Israel is already 20% Arab. It is not like there are only Jews in Israel. The Arabs in Israel have full civilian rights.

So why is it OK for Israel to discriminate based on people's religion and ethnicity? Why is Israel allowed to do what no other country is? Why do you expect us to put up with a double standard?

Also why is the right of return such a problem? No one prevented Jewish refugees returning to their homes after WW2. So why can Israel prevent people returning to the land they rightfully own?

There is no rightfully own. 'Palestinians' were squatters on the land that was never formally bought. The Ottomans tried to settle this issue but the locals refused to actaully formalize land ownership. So 'rightfully own' is a cloudy issue.

Regarding the return of civilians. Did you know that after the creation of Israel over 600,000 Jews were forced to flee Arab lands out of fear of aggressions from their Arab neighbors. Those Jewish refugees from Arab lands left with only the shirts on their backs. What about their rights? As I see it there was a population shift were Arabs left Israel and Jews left Arab lands. The Jewish refugees were absorbed while the Arabs were not due to Arab ploys.

Moreover, the reurn of 'Palestinians' to Israel would create 2 Palestinian countries
not 1. That is probably what you'd like to see, but will never happen.

What do you think about the illegal settlements in the occupied territories? Not all of them were dismantled in Gaza and practically all of them are intended to remain from any West Bank disengagement. Why is Israel allowed to steal Palestinian land?

ALL GAZAN SETTLEMENTS WERE DISMANTLED. This only provided more terrorist staging grounds by the Palestinians. They did nothing productive except for using the lands returned for rocket attacks. Moreover some of the lands returned were NEVER palestinian lands but under UN jurisdiction. It is just always assumed that it is Palestinian lands. Kfar Darom for example was a Jewish settlement BEFORE the creation of Israel. Lets get our facts straight.

The west bank is a separate issue since these lands are strategic lands that if returned would provide Palestinian additional lands to attack Israel from. From these lands Netanya, Kfar Sava and other major cities can be easly rocketted. moreover the Jordan valley has been deemed imperative for Israeli security by more than just the Israeli military. US military experts concurred with this issue as well.
[edit on 17/8/06 by subz]

[edit on 17/8/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

In 1948 during the Israeli war of independance, around 600,000 'Palestinian' refugees left what became Israel (pre-1967 borders) after the war.

"Left" is a nicer way of saying "fled in fear for their lives" I guess...

Look, however you want to twist words and deny history, the truth is modern Israel is a Western colony in land where other people were already living, imposed largely by force.

Before I sound too sanctimonious, we're in the same boat: the US is also a Western colony on what was someone elses land. And no, they didn't have deeds to the land or anything like that, which I guess makes them "squatters" in your eyes, but the fact is that they were living here first.

Fortunately for us, however horrific, the vast majority of those people aren't around anymore to complain about it. They were killed off by the plagues we brought, and by what became essentially an extermination campaign.

Unfortunately for Israel, most of the people you displaced (or at least their immediate descendents) are still around - and they're still pretty ticked off about it. And so are most of your neighbors. And the fact is, you'll either come to some kind of understanding with at least the majority of them, or eventually be overrun. Seven million people are not going to hold back hundreds of millions indefinitely. Israel will not hold a nuclear monopoly in the region indefinitely. No doubt you'll take a lot of them with you when you go down, but honestly that's the best you can hope for if you can't make peace.

Personally, I'm not really keen on throwing away US lives and treasure to defend a doomed colony. And you'll find, when the chips are down, a majority of my countrymen won't be too enthusiastic about it either - especially with horrors like we saw in Lebanon making the headlines every night.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
There is no rightfully own. 'Palestinians' were squatters on the land that was never formally bought.

Now why do I get the feeling this is a blatant lie or downright fabrication?

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I still don't see what the 2 seperate countries with independent borders have to do with anything. Unless you are both talking about if the Palestinians return what will happen to the land that they own that Israelis are now on? Thats something you will have to reckon with sooner or later, and sooner would be better then later when it comes to property and property values. Obviously compensation will have to be made and concessions will have to be given on both sides. Maybe give them some more land and divert 10 years worth of US aid to Israel in their direction to help get them on their feet and recompense them in that way. With all the new investments that would pour into Israel I doubt it would be missed if the economy were booming due to peace.

Actually, I find ourselve in agreement on some of this Pieman. LOL.

Well, any agreement will have to satifsy the security of all nations in the region to live in peace and free from threats of others. Lasting peace treaties with all neighbors of Israel, including a Palestinian state, is a worthwhile goal to acheive. The region as a whole would benefit from the lack of a major military action every decade or two I'm sure.

Like I said, bitter concessions will be have to made on both sides. I'm sure repartions for valid land claims would be a part of it. There can not be a full right of return to Israel proper as it would change the state of Israel into something other than a predominately Jewish State. Concessions on this point by the Palestinians are mandatory as are concessions by Israel on the status of Jerusalem.

Just as well the status of Jerusalem will probably be less than satisfactory to both sides but is probably crucial to a lasting peace as is solving the "right of return" in a manner that will work for both sides. Both sides will have to give up things that they really do not want to currently to make a lasting peace work.

I'm sure aid would pour in to help the peace process take hold, but both sides must really want a peace that the other side can live with as well.

Hope springs eternal.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
There is no rightfully own. 'Palestinians' were squatters on the land that was never formally bought.

Now why do I get the feeling this is a blatant lie or downright fabrication?

Do some research on the subject regarding the ottoman attempt to formalize land ownership. You'll see that Jews were restricted from owning land and the Palestinians did not want to formalize land ownership due to tax they'd have to pay.

Originally posted by xmotex

In 1948 during the Israeli war of independance, around 600,000 'Palestinian' refugees left what became Israel (pre-1967 borders) after the war.

"Left" is a nicer way of saying "fled in fear for their lives" I guess...

Yes they did fear for their lives - The Arab armies that declared war on Israel and asked them to leave for their own safety. Granted Arabs were killed by Jews in Dir Yassin as part of the war effort which were not as innocent as the Arab world leads us to believe. Iraqi soldiers and Armed men were part of the forces in Dir Yassin. The whole war atmosphere, initiated and declared by the Arab world is what brought the refugees to get up and leave. Then yes they did fear for their lives - But this is because of the Arab war initiative.

Look, however you want to twist words and deny history, the truth is modern Israel is a Western colony in land where other people were already living, imposed largely by force.

You are twisting the words here. Jerusalem had a Jewish majority since the start of the census in Jerusalem. Jews were native to the land just as non-Jews. Jewish immigration later peaked. The force that was applied was force on both sides and largely initiated by the Arabs. So lets be honest with ourselves.

I challange you to finid me a single act of force by Jews what was not provoked by Arab aggressions that preceeded it.

Before I sound too sanctimonious, we're in the same boat: the US is also a Western colony on what was someone elses land. And no, they didn't have deeds to the land or anything like that, which I guess makes them "squatters" in your eyes, but the fact is that they were living here first.

The Jews also lived in what is Israel throughout history unlike the Anglos in America.

Personally, I'm not really keen on throwing away US lives and treasure to defend a doomed colony. And you'll find, when the chips are down, a majority of my countrymen won't be too enthusiastic about it either - especially with horrors like we saw in Lebanon making the headlines every night.

You mean the fabricated horrors.
Israel also had numerous killed civilians - we do not splatter the carnage on the TV lout of respect for the families and the dead. Arabs have no such respect.
Creating the news
And again
Just because it is not graphic and in-your-face does not mean that it is not happening. Israel lost over 50 civilians though Hezbullahs targeting of Israeli residential areas by using weapons that are considered illegal (high fragmentation weapons) which were fired from residential areas against international law.
Lebanese civilains die because Hizbullah placed them in the line of fire which they also placed Israeli civilians in the line of fire. Had you have been in any way balanced in your opinions you would have been yelling to high hell about Hezbullah's tactics that placed civilians in danger.

Regarding Israel's future. I'm not worried.

[edit on 18/8/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

[edit on 18/8/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

Judah has pretty much locked this thread up.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Yes they did fear for their lives - The Arab armies that declared war on Israel and asked them to leave for their own safety.

The UN Palestine Mediator's papers c1948-49 show this point exactly...along with the exagerated numbers of Palestin/Arab refugees by Arab nations.

What never receives a mention is that double the number of Israeli refugees fled Arab lands under the same pretext and under duress, without compensation and had their rightfully titled lands stolen....never to return.

The “mandate” simply ran its course and Israel declared her independence, ‘Palestine’ chose not to do the same, rather the inhabitants waited to be liberated by a massive Arab invasion…they gambled and lost.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
The force that was applied was force on both sides and largely initiated by the Arabs. So lets be honest with ourselves.

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
The Jews also lived in what is Israel throughout history unlike the Anglos in America. [/quote

The native America Indians can also blame many other indigenous groups, along with the French, Spanish, Mexicans, English, Portugese…etc… and much later Americans…the parallels are not the same…


mg

It's tough to say that Israel lost when they're now occupying more territory than they did before the start of this war. Isn't that like saying the guy that's up $5,000 dollars lost the poker match because he didn't bankrupt the other guy?

You could say total victory was not achieved, but it's a real stretch to say that Israel lost.