You support Israel? I DO - Armor Games Community

879	278010

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 3:54pm UTC

Your point about living in a tiny island many times smaller than your neighbors is irrelevant because your neighbors have not repeatedly called for your nation's destruction.

President Habibie has remarked that he did not have the feeling that Singapore was a friend, and had pointed to a map, saying: "It's O.K. with me, but there are 211 million people [in Indonesia]. All the green [area] is Indonesia. And that red dot is Singapore.

We have had threats from Malaysia in particular that we are rightfully part of Malaysia. Our country has nowhere as bad relations as Israel does, but we are much smaller. At less than 50km across, it doesn't take much to just invade from a causeway that is practically 5 minutes across.

In no way is it Israel's fault for being in the predicament that it is in right now, as they just want peace.

The Israeli chiefs blatantly knew that Egypt was going to send envoys and they knew that Egypt didn't pose a threat to Israel, yet launched an attack. If that isn't aggression, I don't know what it is.

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: 'They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.' Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from 'specified military locations," and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location' - such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. 'Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords,' Netanyahu affirmed.

He totally wants peace.

If that is the logic You put, then Israel is no better then nazi germany who ivaded belgium just to out flank frenches

I didn't make such a statement. Furthermore as said earlier, both Jordan and Egypt have declared themselves neutral, Syria is a mess, Iraq is on an American leash. Immediate threats are gone apart from the Palestinians, who would be very happy to return to 1967 borders.

I see nothing wrong with having to pay the winner for losing, especially if you started that war.

Such a paradoxical statement.

However, you cannot deny that Israel is due some compensation of land for the wars that were all started by the Arabs.

Vietnam was devastated by America, so shouldn't America give say Texas to them? South Korea was devastated by the North so shouldn't Pyongyang belong to them? A country has no right to seize the land and property of innocent civilians who had no say in asking for war or not. A country can be compensated in other means, but in no way should it directly jeopardise the lives of innocents. If such a mentality of might is right and winner takes all exists, you're on the same brainwave as Punisher.

[quote] Your point about living in a tiny island many times smaller than your neighbors is irrelevant because your neighbors have not repeatedly called for your nation's destruction.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPresident Habibie has remarked that he did not have the feeling that Singapore was a friend, and had pointed to a map, saying: "It's O.K. with me, but there are 211 million people [in Indonesia]. All the green [area] is Indonesia. And that red dot is Singapore.\r\n\r\nWe have had threats from Malaysia in particular that we are rightfully part of Malaysia. Our country has nowhere as bad relations as Israel does, but we are much smaller. At less than 50km across, it doesn't take much to just invade from a causeway that is practically 5 minutes across.\r\n\r\n[quote]In no way is it Israel's fault for being in the predicament that it is in right now, as they just want peace. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThe Israeli chiefs blatantly knew that Egypt was going to send envoys and they knew that Egypt didn't pose a threat to Israel, yet launched an attack. If that isn't aggression, I don't know what it is. \r\n\r\n\r\nIn a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: 'They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.' Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from 'specified military locations," and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location' - such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. 'Why is that important?[b] Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords[/b],' Netanyahu affirmed.\r\n\r\n\r\nHe totally wants peace.\r\n\r\n[quote]If that is the logic You put, then Israel is no better then nazi germany who ivaded belgium just to out flank frenches[/quote]\r\n\r\nI didn't make such a statement. Furthermore as said earlier, both Jordan and Egypt have declared themselves neutral, Syria is a mess, Iraq is on an American leash. Immediate threats are gone apart from the Palestinians, who would be very happy to return to 1967 borders.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote] I see nothing wrong with having to pay the winner for losing, especially if you started that war. [/quote]\r\n\r\nSuch a paradoxical statement. \r\n\r\n[quote]However, you cannot deny that Israel is due some compensation of land for the wars that were all started by the Arabs.[/quote]\r\n\r\nVietnam was devastated by America, so shouldn't America give say Texas to them? South Korea was devastated by the North so shouldn't Pyongyang belong to them? A country has no right to seize the land and property of innocent civilians who had no say in asking for war or not. A country can be compensated in other means, but in no way should it directly jeopardise the lives of innocents. If such a mentality of might is right and winner takes all exists, you're on the same brainwave as Punisher.

offline

zakyman

1,627 posts

Peasant

Posted December 17, '11 3:59pm UTC

Syria is a mess

Syria is an undetonated atomic bomb which has the potential to go off at any moment. Again, they could decide that they are going to lose to the protestors, but that they will take the region down with it. They have missiles pointed straight at Tel Aviv. If that isn't a threat, than I don't know what a threat is.

Vietnam was devastated by America, so shouldn't America give say Texas to them? South Korea was devastated by the North so shouldn't Pyongyang belong to them?

In a perfect world, yes. However, no one in their right mind could take land away from America without being smashed. Since Israel is the "little guy" in this situation, it is much easier to pick on them, and expect them to abide by international laws that no one follows.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted December 17, '11 4:01pm UTC

I didn't make such a statement. Furthermore as said earlier, both Jordan and Egypt have declared themselves neutral, Syria is a mess, Iraq is on an American leash. Immediate threats are gone apart from the Palestinians, who would be very happy to return to 1967 borders

I was commenting on Zaky

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 4:09pm UTC

Syria is an undetonated atomic bomb which has the potential to go off at any moment. Again, they could decide that they are going to lose to the protestors, but that they will take the region down with it. They have missiles pointed straight at Tel Aviv. If that isn't a threat, than I don't know what a threat is.

As I have stated earlier, and will do so one last time, the leaders in power will do anything possible to remain in power. They won't launch missiles at Israel and then expect to destroy both the rebels and the IDF.

In a perfect world, yes. However, no one in their right mind could take land away from America without being smashed. Since Israel is the "little guy" in this situation, it is much easier to pick on them, and expect them to abide by international laws that no one follows.

In the end, your true intentions are just about the same as what you tried to denounce in Punisher, that might is right. Israel is definitely not the ''little guy'' in terms of military strength, and is in fact, the other way round given the disparities in both parties' militaries. Has any major Arab power declared war on them in the past thirty years? No. An eye for an eye only spirals into more violence, and compensation for the winner has already shown the world what ill will it can instil in the defeated people. Perhaps an example which you so fondly give would be appropriate here.

Versailles. Hitler. Death.

And all because the French imposed harsh terms on the Germans. By taking away what is rightfully the Germans, it just instigated more hatred and a thirst for revenge. If Israel really wants and claims to aim for peace, then it should not take another step down that road. It cannot expect innocent Palestinians to atone for the sins of their parents and accept a few dollops of cash. That is despicable, depriving someone of their home. Conquest is just another term for robbery.

[quote]Syria is an undetonated atomic bomb which has the potential to go off at any moment. Again, they could decide that they are going to lose to the protestors, but that they will take the region down with it. They have missiles pointed straight at Tel Aviv. If that isn't a threat, than I don't know what a threat is.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs I have stated earlier, and will do so one last time, the leaders in power will do anything possible to remain in power. They won't launch missiles at Israel and then expect to destroy both the rebels and the IDF.\r\n\r\n[quote]In a perfect world, yes. However, no one in their right mind could take land away from America without being smashed. Since Israel is the "little guy" in this situation, it is much easier to pick on them, and expect them to abide by international laws that no one follows.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn the end, your true intentions are just about the same as what you tried to denounce in Punisher, that might is right. Israel is definitely not the ''little guy'' in terms of military strength, and is in fact, the other way round given the disparities in both parties' militaries. Has any major Arab power declared war on them in the past thirty years? No. An eye for an eye only spirals into more violence, and compensation for the winner has already shown the world what ill will it can instil in the defeated people. Perhaps an example which you so fondly give would be appropriate here. \r\n\r\nVersailles. Hitler. Death. \r\n\r\nAnd all because the French imposed harsh terms on the Germans. By taking away what is rightfully the Germans, it just instigated more hatred and a thirst for revenge. If Israel really wants and claims to aim for peace, then it should not take another step down that road. It cannot expect innocent Palestinians to atone for the sins of their parents and accept a few dollops of cash. That is despicable, depriving someone of their home. Conquest is just another term for robbery.

offline

zakyman

1,627 posts

Peasant

Posted December 17, '11 4:24pm UTC

If Israel really wants and claims to aim for peace, then it should not take another step down that road.

When was the last time that Israel has made a motion to not go for peace? If I recall, than it is the Pals who made the terrible decision to go to the UN, the Pals who denied the Camp David accords, and the Pals who refuse to be happy with anything else short of driving Israel into the sea.

As I have stated earlier, and will do so one last time, the leaders in power will do anything possible to remain in power. They won't launch missiles at Israel and then expect to destroy both the rebels and the IDF.

Yes, they will do everything to remain in power. However, if it becomes evident that they are going to lose, they could throw the Middle East into a huge war with an attack on Israel. You fail to grasp the concept of the unpredictability of the Syrian leaders. If they feel that it is necessary to take pressure off of them, or at least "make their mark on the world," than they will not hesitate to bomb or attack Israel.

[quote]If Israel really wants and claims to aim for peace, then it should not take another step down that road.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhen was the last time that Israel has made a motion to not go for peace? If I recall, than it is the Pals who made the terrible decision to go to the UN, the Pals who denied the Camp David accords, and the Pals who refuse to be happy with anything else short of driving Israel into the sea.\r\n\r\n[quote]As I have stated earlier, and will do so one last time, the leaders in power will do anything possible to remain in power. They won't launch missiles at Israel and then expect to destroy both the rebels and the IDF.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes, they will do everything to remain in power. However, if it becomes evident that they are going to lose, they could throw the Middle East into a huge war with an attack on Israel. You fail to grasp the concept of the unpredictability of the Syrian leaders. If they feel that it is necessary to take pressure off of them, or at least "make their mark on the world," than they will not hesitate to bomb or attack Israel.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 4:48pm UTC

When was the last time that Israel has made a motion to not go for peace? If I recall, than it is the Pals who made the terrible decision to go to the UN, the Pals who denied the Camp David accords, and the Pals who refuse to be happy with anything else short of driving Israel into the sea.

By not even giving back the Pals land and saying that compensation was enough is not peace generating.

At Camp David the Palestinians offered to accept sovereignity over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and leave it as that, with an option for a one to one switch over any territories. Israel offered 3/4 of the land, and refused to give up more land in exchange. The Palestinians rejected this proposal on grounds that Israel did not offer land in return for the land it planned to annex, the settlements that Israel wanted to annex cut existing road networks between population centers, the settlement blocs that Israel wanted to keep would separate the West Bank into cantons, and that they could not accept Israel still having the capability of controlling freedom of movement inside a Palestinian state.

The failure of Camp David cannot be squarely shouldered by the Palestinians. It is true that their stubbornness contributed to the failure of the Summit, but the Israelis and American's own obstinacy to give in to the Right of Return and by not offering adequate exchanges of land or control over Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are equally to blame. Furthermore, both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

The reasons for Camp David's failure are numerous since the details of the Summit vary from account to account, making pin pointing difficult. What is apparent though is that both sides are to blame.

And the Pals have a right to petition for statehood in the UN. It is not a ''terrible'' decision, just as the UN partitioned slices for both sides and declared both sides as states, the Pals have a right to statehood.

However, if it becomes evident that they are going to lose, they could throw the Middle East into a huge war with an attack on Israel. You fail to grasp the concept of the unpredictability of the Syrian leaders. If they feel that it is necessary to take pressure off of them, or at least "make their mark on the world," than they will not hesitate to bomb or attack Israel.

Which would further compound the war crimes listed against them in the trial. I do not fail to grasp the unpredictability of the Syrians. What I am saying is that it is merely an assumption that Syria will do something that drastic. Libya had over 5000 missiles, yet fired only a few Scuds.

[quote]When was the last time that Israel has made a motion to not go for peace? If I recall, than it is the Pals who made the terrible decision to go to the UN, the Pals who denied the Camp David accords, and the Pals who refuse to be happy with anything else short of driving Israel into the sea.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBy not even giving back the Pals land and saying that compensation was enough is not peace generating. \r\n\r\nAt Camp David the Palestinians offered to accept sovereignity over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and leave it as that, with an option for a one to one switch over any territories. Israel offered 3/4 of the land, and refused to give up more land in exchange. The Palestinians rejected this proposal on grounds that Israel did not offer land in return for the land it planned to annex, the settlements that Israel wanted to annex cut existing road networks between population centers, the settlement blocs that Israel wanted to keep would separate the West Bank into cantons, and that they could not accept Israel still having the capability of controlling freedom of movement inside a Palestinian state. \r\n\r\nThe failure of Camp David cannot be squarely shouldered by the Palestinians. It is true that their stubbornness contributed to the failure of the Summit, but the Israelis and American's own obstinacy to give in to the Right of Return and by not offering adequate exchanges of land or control over Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are equally to blame. Furthermore, both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.\r\n\r\nThe reasons for Camp David's failure are numerous since the details of the Summit vary from account to account, making pin pointing difficult. What is apparent though is that both sides are to blame.\r\n\r\n\r\nAnd the Pals have a right to petition for statehood in the UN. It is not a ''terrible'' decision, just as the UN partitioned slices for both sides and declared both sides as states, the Pals have a right to statehood.  \r\n\r\n[quote] However, if it becomes evident that they are going to lose, they could throw the Middle East into a huge war with an attack on Israel. You fail to grasp the concept of the unpredictability of the Syrian leaders. If they feel that it is necessary to take pressure off of them, or at least "make their mark on the world," than they will not hesitate to bomb or attack Israel.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhich would further compound the war crimes listed against them in the trial. I do not fail to grasp the unpredictability of the Syrians. What I am saying is that it is merely an assumption that Syria will do something that drastic. Libya had over 5000 missiles, yet fired only a few Scuds.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted December 17, '11 4:51pm UTC

Which would further compound the war crimes listed against them in the trial. I do not fail to grasp the unpredictability of the Syrians. What I am saying is that it is merely an assumption that Syria will do something that drastic. Libya had over 5000 missiles, yet fired only a few Scuds.

USA (Israel's biggest ally)
Also have a tendency of invading others on just assumptions(Iraq war).

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 4:53pm UTC

USA (Israel's biggest ally)
Also have a tendency of invading others on just assumptions(Iraq war).

That doesn't absolve anyone of any crime. Just because someone else has done it, doesn't mean it is justified or right in any way.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted December 17, '11 5:02pm UTC

That doesn't absolve anyone of any crime. Just because someone else has done it, doesn't mean it is justified or right in any way.

I meant the both are allies and I will not be surperised if Israel follows this behaviour of USA.
And yes You are right A crime is a crime wether I do it or You.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 5:05pm UTC

Before I go I'm going to sum up my rather idealistic view of the whole mess:

A) Both states have a right to exist.
B) Both states must cease all violence instead of perpetuating a cycle and then blaming each other.
C) Both are equally to blame. Period. The Arabs might have started it, but to be fair, they were angered by what they saw as a foreign invasion of their land, i.e massive immigration.
D) Israel and the Palestinians should compromise over the 1967 borders. Flat out. Camp David failed not because the Palestinians wanted a 1948 border but because there were disagreements over the proposed land exchange.
E) Might is not right. Conquest is illegal.

offline

zakyman

1,627 posts

Peasant

Posted December 17, '11 5:11pm UTC

By not even giving back the Pals land and saying that compensation was enough is not peace generating.

So the Israelis should have just given them land for nothing? No concessions from the Palestinians? The Israelis were going to give the Pals 93% of what they wanted. I would say that is a great deal. However, the Pals wanted Jerusalem, Right of Return, and a vast array of other impossible concessions, all in return for a "guarantee" of peace. Israel had a peace agreement with the Pals before. What happened? Hamas started shelling them. I don't think that Israel would be too eager to just grant whatever the Pals wanted. I think that there should be a Palestinian state, but on the condition that it is a demilitarized one.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted December 17, '11 5:18pm UTC

Both of u, cease fire!
Lets face the facts,
We can't do crap about this issue.
As things are going they will keep going on like this for hundred years if left unintervened.
Nicho, Zaky is a ypunger version of me so u cant convince him either.
The End

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 5:22pm UTC

Pals wanted Jerusalem

They wanted control over the Arab parts of East Jerusalem, not the entire city.

So the Israelis should have just given them land for nothing? No concessions from the Palestinians?

As I have said earlier, the blame lies on both sides, and the Palestinians for not wholly agreeing to a permanent peace. In return for a perpetual peace so that Israelis won't need to live in fear of Arab attacks, recognition of Israel, it is a good deal for both sides. I find it amazing the Pals didn't even want the 1948 borders.

Right of Return

Apart from the purported flood of immigrants that would erase the Jewish Character of a state that you claim does not have an official religion, which can be solved by a limited immigration number per year (Something the Jews certainly know about, after breaking it numerous times), provide three arguments that an ordinary Palestinian has no right to return to his homeland.

What happened? Hamas started shelling them. I don't think that Israel would be too eager to just grant whatever the Pals wanted. I think that there should be a Palestinian state, but on the condition that it is a demilitarized one.

If the Palestinians are to be demilitarised, the Israelis have to. I would refuse to live in a nation next to a larger one that has the most advanced weaponry in the region who used to be my foe. That's ridiculous.

Furthermore, given Israel's past record of bombing suspected nuclear sites in other countries without warning, it would smack of utter hypocrisy to say that its enemies break truces and that it is just a victim.

[quote]Pals wanted Jerusalem[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey wanted control over the Arab parts of East Jerusalem, not the entire city. \r\n\r\n[quote]So the Israelis should have just given them land for nothing? No concessions from the Palestinians?[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs I have said earlier, the blame lies on both sides, and the Palestinians for not wholly agreeing to a permanent peace. In return for a perpetual peace so that Israelis won't need to live in fear of Arab attacks, recognition of Israel, it is a good deal for both sides. I find it amazing the Pals didn't even want the 1948 borders. \r\n\r\n[quote]Right of Return[/quote]\r\n\r\nApart from the purported flood of immigrants that would erase the Jewish Character of a state that you claim does not have an official religion, which can be solved by a limited immigration number per year (Something the Jews certainly know about, after breaking it numerous times), provide three arguments that an ordinary Palestinian has no right to return to his homeland.\r\n\r\n[quote]What happened? Hamas started shelling them. I don't think that Israel would be too eager to just grant whatever the Pals wanted. I think that there should be a Palestinian state, but on the condition that it is a demilitarized one. [/quote]\r\n\r\nIf the Palestinians are to be demilitarised, the Israelis have to. I would refuse to live in a nation next to a larger one that has the most advanced weaponry in the region who used to be my foe. That's ridiculous. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, given Israel's past record of bombing suspected nuclear sites in other countries without warning, it would smack of utter hypocrisy to say that its enemies break truces and that it is just a victim.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted December 17, '11 5:24pm UTC

We can't do crap about this issue.

Yes we can't. But I am taking a course in the topic for my final year, so it does good for me to brush up on the arguments. I have said my last word, and I won't be coming back tonight anymore.

Kind of like a Camp David Summit, without a guarantee of total peace. So, yes sorry if I trod on a few Jewish and Muslim toes, but I have quite enough of both sides pinning the blame squarely on the other. Now goodnight. For reals.

offline

zakyman

1,627 posts

Peasant

Posted December 17, '11 5:47pm UTC

Furthermore, given Israel's past record of bombing suspected nuclear sites in other countries without warning, it would smack of utter hypocrisy to say that its enemies break truces and that it is just a victim.

Israel is known for taking out threats. When you live in a country who's existence has been threatened each and every day since day one, I might take that argument into consideration. You have no idea how many times Israel has been on the brink of destruction. You have no valid basis for criticizing their policies to bomb nuclear facilities of hostile nations. If you do that, than you have to condemn the US for taking out bin Laden, al-Alwaki, and other attacks in Pakistan. Furthermore, you must condemn NATO, France, and the US for bombings in Libya.

provide three arguments that an ordinary Palestinian has no right to return to his homeland.

1) They have no documents of ownership of land. Anyone who looks like a Palestinian could try to get free land.
2) There ISN'T enough land. Unless they were willing to live in the heart of the Negev, Israel couldn't give up land to them anymore than they have.
3) Security threats. Any radicalized Palestinian allowed to walk through customs and into Israel is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Zaky is a ypunger version of me so u cant convince him either.
The End

No, because I recognize that the Palestinians have the right to a country, and am open to both sides of the argument.

[quote]Furthermore, given Israel's past record of bombing suspected nuclear sites in other countries without warning, it would smack of utter hypocrisy to say that its enemies break truces and that it is just a victim.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIsrael is known for taking out threats. When you live in a country who's existence has been threatened each and every day since day one, I might take that argument into consideration. You have no idea how many times Israel has been on the brink of destruction. You have no valid basis for criticizing their policies to bomb nuclear facilities of hostile nations. If you do that, than you have to condemn the US for taking out bin Laden, al-Alwaki, and other attacks in Pakistan. Furthermore, you must condemn NATO, France, and the US for bombings in Libya.\r\n\r\n[quote]provide three arguments that an ordinary Palestinian has no right to return to his homeland.[/quote]\r\n\r\n1) They have no documents of ownership of land. Anyone who looks like a Palestinian could try to get free land.\r\n2) There ISN'T enough land. Unless they were willing to live in the heart of the Negev, Israel couldn't give up land to them anymore than they have.\r\n3) Security threats. Any radicalized Palestinian allowed to walk through customs and into Israel is a nightmare waiting to happen.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Zaky is a ypunger version of me so u cant convince him either.\r\nThe End[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, because I recognize that the Palestinians have the right to a country, and am open to both sides of the argument.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO