Hebrew word for disproportionate?

[Scouse]

Only because they had been attacked previously ! Jesus do you people only see what you want to see?
Id smack all the arab states , and indeed most muslim states with a big stick till they all died to be perfectly honest.




(Have I gone too far by the way?)

Well Mr Throd, you don't offend me with your comments but you do show quite blatantly where you're arguing from.

If anyone here is under the impression that the Israeli government are anything other than a bunch of extremists/terrorists/grade-A cnuts then they're fooling themselves.

Fourth most powerful army in the world. Extremely well armed (and we all know by who) and probably the best trained troops, acting worse than so-called "terrorists".

Want to know why the arabs want to push them into the sea/wipe them off the face of the earth?

Because the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians what the Germans did to the Jews. Ethnically cleansing.

They can't do it the same way Hitler did. The game would be up if they just rounded up all the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and whacked them all in an incinerator. But don't be fooled - if they could they would.

I'm not an apologist for the suicide bombers and I don't dislike the Israeli people - but if you're looking for true evil in these conflicts you don't have to look far or hard. The rest of the world knows it too - but has all but given up trying to force sucessive Israeli governments to stop what they're doing because every time the UN comes up with a resolution against them (and there've been loads) the US vetos it.

Carte blanche to do what they like, kill who the fuck they like, with near-impunity. That's what we give Israel. And we slate the rest of the Arab world for hating us for it.

Who can fucking blame them?

 

[Paradroid]

Israel was going to exist long before WWII happened; it was happening anyway. Palestinians only have an identity because of Israel, 'Palestine' was a British mandate, and before that an Ottoman province; its never been a real country, any more than Iraq is, and we all know how that's going to turn out. The Palestinians were no more native to 'Palestine' than any other part of the Trans-Jordan; the Ottomans moved whole populations around all the time, that's why the Balkans were/are such a mess.

If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the Israelis to be around longer than any of the states surrounding them. If anything puts paid to 'the Jewish state' it'll be demographics not terrorists or the arab states.

Webbylinkadage

...
This hope was realised in 1917, when the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made his famous Declaration in favour of "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Balfour was motivated partly by philo-Semitic sentiment, partly by a desire to weaken the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany during the First World War), and partly by a desire to strengthen support for the Allied cause in the United States, home to the world's most influental Jewish community. In the Declaration, however, Balfour was careful to use the word "home" rather than "state," and also to specify that its establishment must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
...

 

[throdgrain]

Fourth most powerful army in the world. Extremely well armed (and we all know by who) and probably the best trained troops, acting worse than so-called "terrorists".

Want to know why the arabs want to push them into the sea/wipe them off the face of the earth?

Because the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians what the Germans did to the Jews. Ethnically cleansing.

Hmm. Ive been to Israel. There are loads and loads of Palastinians living there, particularly in Haifa, the place the Hezbollah looneys keep attacking.Because the Jews suffered so terribly at the hands of the Nazis makes it so easy for anybody with a an opinion, however misguided, to make ten-bob analogys.
As far as having a powerful army goes, well wouldnt you have a powerful army if you were surrounded on all sides by enemies?
And what sort of army would you like them to have anyway? The 5th most powerful, would that be ok? Or the 6th? I dont understand the comment.

ps I dont even really know why I bother to type this. Does anybody, ever, expect to convince anyone else in a conversation like this? Unlikely.

 

[DaGaffer]

Simple economics will finish them if nothing else - how can you have a 'loss leader' state - its severely in the red - it has no real rescources - it even has to use de-salination to produce enough drinking water - its a house of cards.

Israel has a per capita GDP similar to Greece and better than a lot of other EU members, and a 4% economic growth rate (a lot better than us). As for 'severely in the red', well you could make the same argument about the US at the moment. The difference between Israel and its neighbours is that it has a balanced 'modern' economy and a highly skilled labour force (look at the number of Israeli software companies). And its hardly unique in having to import most of its raw materials, look at Japan for instance. The only 'House of Cards' is that jewish Israelis are being outbred by arab Israelis, that's where the real change will come from.

 

[Furr]

UK is also in the red, and has been for a few years now.

 

[Scouse]

I have no axe to grind, I don't care about either of them. Just bear in mind the above statement cuts both ways. At no point have I seen you say that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves, and at every point you've painted them as 'aggressors'. And as for this supposed pro-Israel media bias; I'm not sure what press you're reading, but I can't remember much Pro-Israeli press in the last 20-odd years.

The US press/media tends to be pro-Israeli but the EU press/media tends to be pro-Palestinian.

According to the UN resolution that told them to get the fuck out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip they are the "aggressors".

Have you heard the term "occupied territories" and ever considered what it actually meant? It's not their land - and they're occupying it by force.

Not only that but they're building settlements at a rate in these areas just to give themselves an excuse to be there. "Look - we can't move out - there's too many of us there". Well, they wouldn't be there in those fucking numbers if you weren't shunting them in as fast as you can.


Anyway - my point - the BBC has just had it's knuckles rapped for Pro-Israeli bias in it's reporting.

 

[DaGaffer]

Anyway - my point - the BBC has just had it's knuckles rapped for Pro-Israeli bias in it's reporting.

Link please? I can't find a reference. In fact googling 'BBC Israel Bias' seems to throw up more anti-Israel bias accusations than pro.

 

[Furr]

China invaded Tibet, Chinese don't care its their buffer between them and india, USA and UK are still occupying Iraq, The Argentines would say we are occupying the Falklands. Its all a matter of whos perpective you see it, Some Irish people would see us as occupying Northern Ireland.

Some people need to realise that when they "lose" they lose, if you lose a war then you lose the war.

 

[Tom]

Have you heard the term "occupied territories" and ever considered what it actually meant? It's not their land - and they're occupying it by force.

Captured and occupied during a war though, a war which Israel didn't initiate?

 

[Scouse]

Captured and occupied during a war though, a war which Israel didn't initiate?

Yes Tom. But they're not "at war" now and the UN resolution told them to get out a long time ago.

You can't honestly say they're fighting like an army with an intention to leave either. They're building settlements (against another UN resolution) and shipping as many people in as possible. At the same time they're restricting the movements and abilities of the palastinians to work and destroying palastinian arable ground (carob groves etc).

They're not trying to leave. They're making the inhabitants life hell and killing regularly. Oppressing a people. Do you seriously expect some sections of their society to not turn to violence?

Link please? I can't find a reference. In fact googling 'BBC Israel Bias' seems to throw up more anti-Israel bias accusations than pro.

I'll find you that link if I can and I'll PM ya - warcrafting with a load of mates at the mo tho


I did have a cursory look and google and you're right - it's full of stuff (like the Times) rubbishing it.

CNN, NBC, ABC and any of Rupert Murdock's News International (fox and sky and many British papers) have had the same accusation levelled against them. - but the BBC has had to invite independent auditors to check their broadcasting quality standards and their report is authoritative.

If you look back in this thread you'll see a documentary on bias in the American media. I'm not making any assertions about the independence of the source but either way a lot of what's in there is cast-iron.

Stop seeing the world in black and white people. We're not evil in the west - but some of what is done in our name makes a mockery of our lives.

 

[Scouse]

Soz chaps, that was wayyyy too preachy

 

[Tom]

Yes Tom. But they're not "at war" now and the UN resolution told them to get out a long time ago.

Serious question - what reparations did these states make for attacking Israel, both during the War of Independance, and the Yom Kippur War?

 

[Scouse]

Serious question - what reparations did these states make for attacking Israel, both during the War of Independance, and the Yom Kippur War?

Probably none Tom. But an argument involving both those wars would be just as complex and controversial as the current one - so lets not 'widen the field of conflict' eh?


Gaffer old bean - I'm fucked if I can find a linky to the report I mentioned (although, admittedly, I've not tried that hard - but to verify its existence a cursory google search will find you links to stories rubbishing the report (a substantial amount from News International-owned sources I might add)). In the meantime, will this old shit suffice as a stop-gap?



Anyway, regardless of all the above - relying solely on news stations for your view of the world is a flawed method. The people reporting are journalists - not historians - and they've got deadlines to meet/viewers to attract/interested parties always sticking their oar in etc. etc. Not the best environment for unbiased views - the sheer number of news services themselves is evidence of this - everyone likes to read/watch their "own brand" of news - but there's only so many ways you can report "facts" before you end up distorting them - intentionally or not.