Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by Adam's Apple, Jul 18, 2006.
Good one--this "Dispropartionate response" mantra is BS and encourages (maybe even protects) terrorism in general.
Yep, I keep trying to figure out both what 'disproportionate response' is; along with why US is being held to the Geneva Conventions when those we are fighting are not.
Hizbollah and the Palestinians have both been using civilians as human shields, we saw this in Iraq also. So, even 'precision strikes' are going to result in higher civilian casualties. I keep wondering, Israel is responding to attacks and incursions across its borders. They have the means to defend themselves, which they are employing. Because the aggressors are limited by their weapons, does that mean Israel should only be able to respond with like weapons?
The Geneva Conventions were an agreement, mostly of the West, to create some code of warfare to minimize civilian casualties. If all sides kept them, the costs for all would be held down, not eliminated. But what if ony one side in a conflict is held to those standards? At that point, it seems to me that that side would be well advised to respond in kind. Beheadings for beheadings. Torture and mutilation for same. The only way to deal with codified barbarity is with the same sort.
Here is an idea, if Israel is so strong lets see them make it on their own, no U.S. financial aid and no military aid, it won't happen because you know they will be overrun in months and the Palestinians would get back what was illegally stolen from them by the U.N. in 1947 which is the root of the problem. If the U.N. hadn't overstepped its bounds in 1947 we have no M.E. probs today.
The 1947 establishment of Israel is akin to the U.N giving Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Southern California, Southern Utah, Southern Nevada and Southern Colorado to La Raza, would any of you have a problem with that?
Anyway...disproportionate response......the rockets aren't being fired from Beirut, they don't have the range, yet Beirut is being leveled.
I proposed the same thing for us in Iraq and I was told by many that that was wrong and would turn world opinion against us.......but its Israel.....the golden child.....they can do no wrong in U.S. eyes.
I would but what has been done has been done. If Arabs continue to deny the existance of Israels right to be there, they will live in squalor.
Post deleted by Adam's Apple. The cartoon has been changed to another subject.
Time to maybe examine going back to pre 1967 borders.
The UN did not overstep its bounds in 1949. The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side of WWI and by the rules of the day, "to the victors go the spoils." Britain partitioned a state within Transjordan; which, was their right to do as Palestine was then a British mandate.
You honestly think we would have no problems in the ME if Israel didn't exist? You're ignoring a LOT -- thousands of years -- of history.
I know for sure there wouldn't be a Jew/Palestinian problem, that is 100% for sure.
Separate names with a comma.