well, seeing as no one is willing to either answer my questions
[spoiler]
Hitchkok wrote:before you go. let me ask you a question (or rather, two):
imagine, if you will, that a group of mexican catholics in the south of Texas declared themselves a new nation. they call themselves "Texasians", and start demanding autonomy. Every country in Latin america is declaring support, but none, including Mexico, is willing to accept them, or give them a land. USA offers to renounce Texas to Mexico, along with the "Texasians". Mexico is unwilling to take it.
the "Texasian" begin attacking towns and cities along Texas and the US. The US, of-course, deploys the national guard to stop said attacks. this is published throughout the world as a sign of the US opressing the Texasian (which by now has become recognized as an ethnic group seperated from other latin america groups, an has gained observer status in the UN).
at last, the US withdraws all military from Texas, and evacuates every non-latin protestant civilians from Texas.
the US continues to supply Texas with food, fuel, water, electricity, drugs, and all sorts of humanitarian supplies.
Every latin and catholic state on earth, support the military endevours of the Texasians, none support their humanitarian ones.
the Texasian proceed to fire rockets at bordering states, resulting at termination of said supplies. this is presented as a blockade to the international community, and the supply is resumed.
Mexico discovers that ammunition is being smuggled through it's borders, and start building a wall to stop said smuggling.
A Texasian sniper shoots and kills a Mexican police officer.
The questions are:
what should the US do?
what
would the US do?
British readers, change Mexican to Irish and US to England. then answer the question.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
Hitchkok wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:look, dont preach to me about claims of rights and whatnot...
i'm Greek Cypriot whose family was driven off the land by the US because archbishop Makarios (our then leader) was murdered for not letting the US have a base in northern Cyprus, and whose family's land is now in the hands of Turks who had no claim to the land because they were shipped in to specifically occupy the land, and which has been backed by the UN.
so, land that was in my family for MANY generations has been stolen from me, and on top of that, Turkish Cypriots who were once friends of my family have been butchered and raped by the main land Turks...
when you have returned to cyprus, and formed an independent state, would you some 60 years later forfeit it's army and renounce it's existence, and the very safety of it's people, for whatever reason?
or you would make it as strong and independent as possible, to ensure another exile would not be forced upon you?
if there is any country in the world that will act differently than your answer, please state it's name.
[/spoiler]
or give anything else but wild accusation of Genocide backed up by nothing but the
ad populum fallacy
[spoiler]
[KMA]Avenger wrote:as for the charges of murder and genocide...i could show you a bunch of graphs comparing Israeli deaths vs Palestinian deaths, but seriously...what's the point in that?
Brdavs wrote:Under the line, I`ll say that personally I`d only like to see Israel held accountable for all the violations of international and humanitarian law, and that list is long and violations severe. Noone in their right mind (note: this is "ad populum" at it's best!) can deny elements of genocide (note that the definition of genocide is not as limited as ww2 movies portraye them) and ethnic cleansing (simmilar disclaimer) do exist. And you cant wonder "gee why are the crazy beggars doing crazy stuff" when you treat people like that and push them towards it.
Brdavs wrote:I`ll just say that illegalities are known and cant be ignored...(again, Ad populum. when i asked for further proof, i never got it)
[/spoiler]
and as everyone agrees Israel faces
terrorism,
[spoiler]
[KMA]Avenger wrote:and lets define a Palestinian terrorist...
Brdavs wrote:Why not solve them? There is no better reason for it than the reason terrorists cite. Shortsigthed, pigheaded & selfrighteous BS.
[/spoiler]
let me just give some of my own opinions.
Israel is a fact. it exists, and it wil never renounce it's existence.
the palestinians have the right of self definition, and have a right to a state of their own. this state will include Gaza, which Israel has already renounced. the way i see it, whether it will include the west bank is up to how the palestinians will play their cards. the way their playing them now is not working to their benefeit. the way i see it, the constant dragging of negotiations, and the ever increasing demands (and look through
yale's avalon project's section on the middle east for the facts on this) by the palestinian leadership only harms their people and their chances.
i am a humanist, a socialist, and a liberal. but i care for my people more then i care for other people. especially, when the other people leadership is continouesly calling for the annihilation of my state.
were i the israely PM, i would publish the following ultimatum worldwide: "the next act of aggression to be made by the palestinian people will bring about the immediate clousore of Israel's borders with Gaza and the West bank. ships will be allowed to come a shore, after being screened by the UN and proved to carry no weapons or ammunitions." the Jordanian and Egiptian borders are not under Israels juristiction, but given the fact that Egipt is currently building a wall to stop smuggling through said border, i don't think the palestinians should have great hopes from there.
would the palestinian leadership throw down their weapons and accept peacful proposals, Israel would be the first to help them develop their economy and agriculture (the same as we did with Jordan).
this situation will come to an end the minute the palestinian leadership will have the intrests of their people, rather than the destruction of Israel, as their first priority.
