Israeli attack on Jabaliya

[Darth Viscera]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/mideast/index.html

It's a somewhat old article, 3 days old, but I wonder what your opinions are on that raid conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces?

From what I've heard, more than 150 people were killed and wounded in that attack on northern Gaza, because the armored units in the IDF outfit fired deadly anti-personnel shells into crowds. If I'm thinking of the right 120mm shells, these are set to detonate in mid-air, splashing 3,000 1-inch steel darts in all directions. If any one of these steel darts gets you, there's a good chance you'll wind up dead. It's like spraying pesticide inside a bee hive.

Normally, I would be inclined to think that this sort of massacre was the result of a command failure on the part of the officer in charge or an Israeli soldier with an itchy trigger finger, but it happens every single time that the IDF invades Palestine. Every time that their armored vehicles (many of which read "Made in the USA" or were purchased with U.S. aid package money, btw) rumble forwards into Gaza or the West Bank, you can bet top dollar that 100 palestinians are going to be killed or wounded. It happens like clockwork, usually as retaliation for a palestinian suicide bomber, on average I'd say once a week.

If I were to be asked to furnish an opinion on the IDF's lethal anti-personnel, anti-civilian tactics, I'd say that there should be an immediate crackdown on illegal civilian killings within the IDF, starting with the Major, Lt. Colonel or Colonel who led those 2 armored companies into Jabaliya and gave the orders to load AP shells. Whoever's responsible should be sent to the Hague for war crimes trials. Since Israel is and has forever been maintaining itself as a going concern on our tax dollars alone, it should oblige itself to conform to American military standards, i.e. no more civilian massacres. If they want the yankee greenbacks to keep rolling into their pockets, they've got to keep their house in order and their small-unit officers on a leash.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Arent there citizens who have rifles and guns that are not part of the Palestinian army yet still fire at the Israelis? Is this what it was? Like a mob?

I havent heard details so I dont know.

[Sanis Prent]

Even still...if you're in a tank or APC, there are better ways of handling the situation. I despise how Israel handles itself in these disputes nowadays. It seems that ever since Rabin was killed, things have gone downhill as far as somewhat-decent Israeli leaders go. Sharon is an absolute barbarian. I wish they'd get him out of office :\

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't like Sharon either the man is a barbarian, he doesn't seem to mind murdering women and children, of course it could be worse that dolt Netenyahoo (I mispelled his name on purpose :p) could be in power that man has policies that sound scary plus he is a crook last time he was president he robbed the country blind.

[Diego Van Derveld]

I dislike both of them vehemently...Netenyahu (sp) a bit worse. I really wish Israel could elect a sane leader again. They need another Rabin. It is absolutely tragic that he was assassinated. Had he not been, there's not telling how far the peace process might have gone.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree Rabin was a great man, its sad, even sadder it was one of his own people. It reminds me a lot of what happened to Ghadni.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

I always liked Golda Meir (sp?), too.

[Darth Viscera]

Ariel Sharon is not a man of peace. I'm guessing that a Mauser dropped into his cradle at the age of 2. At the age of 14, back in 1942, he was killing british troops in palestine. Another Rabin would be good, but lock up all the insane fanatical "hold my machine gun while I take a leak" jews in Israel first, or he won't live long.

[Dutchy]

It doesn't really matter what leader Israel has. As long as Jeruzalem exists they will never have peace there.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

As long as Jeruzalem exists they will never have peace there

Meaning.......?

[Darth Viscera]

Dutchy, that's a rather daft thing to say.

[Sanis Prent]

That's an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the situation. When Rabin was in power, great strides were being made to bridge the gap towards peace. I think that if the trend would have continued, that the level of reform seen in Northern Ireland could be possible in Palestine. Now, who knows how far Netinyahu and Sharon have set back the process. Not like Arafat's doing much better, but I think a lot of his crazy antics are being provoked by all this. I heard (haven't confirmed it) that the PLO have elected a new moderate leader. Perhaps this could help the process in the future. First and foremost, stop cashing Iraqi terror checks. That's a good idea, fresh from DUH Magazine.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Lady Daiquiri
Meaning.......?

It means both Israelians and Palestinians believe they own Jeruzalem, so as long as they have to share it they won't have peace.

[Dutchy]

Yes, it's an exaggerated view, but I think that's what it comes done to. Or at least one of the main issues.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis. Period.

[ReaperFett]

I agree with Dutchy.


And why so sure Daiq?

[Sanis Prent]

Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis. Period.

So sayeth 1940's Britain and America, with their cunning use of flags. I beg to differ. The Palestinians have just as much claim to it.

[Darth Viscera]

“What is it, Lieutenant Sebastian?”
“It’s just the Rebels, sir. They’re here.”
“My God, man! Do they want tea?”
“No, I think they’re after something more than that, sir. I don’t know what it is, but they’ve brought a flag.”
“Da--, that’s dash cunning of them!"

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

How can you figure they have as much claim to Jerusalem as the Israelis?

1. Old Testament - Jerusalem is in Israel

2. New Testament - Jerusalem is in Israel

3. Today: 5:37 pm CST - Jerusalem is in Israel.

To me, thats the same as saying that Spain believes they still own Florida because they once occupied it.

[ReaperFett]

Can the UK have New York back then?

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Nevah! >D

It would cost you so much more than the beads and other trinkets you originally paid. The UK cant afford us now :p

[Sanis Prent]

and what about the 1000 or more years of Islamic rule? Or few hundred years of Christian rule? Or few hundred years of rule by Polytheistic Romans? Polytheistic Egyptians? Etc etc etc.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Because Jerusalem was once owned/occupied does not give the Palestinians any rights to the city now. But thats my humble opinion.

[Sanis Prent]

Its the same situation in which the Cherokee nation was transplanted off their land at gunpoint, under Andrew Jackson, so that white settlers could move in. The only difference is that I doubt the Palestinians have suffered like the Cherokee have, though thousands have been slain under the Star of David. I don't identify the biblical nation of Israel with the present-day one. Revisionists marking on a map with a magic markers are not biblical prophets. Jerusalem, under Ottoman rule, was a land in which religious tolerance was made into reality. Though it wasn't always that way, it did show that even back in the "dark ages", it could be done. It still can be, I believe.

Israel belongs to the Palestinians.
Israel belongs to the Jews.

The common factor is that coexistance must find a way back to reality.

[Admiral Lebron]

My Rabbi said that Sharon was put in power because he would eliminate the Palestine threat. And Sanis, the Roman Empire invaded Israel two thousand plus years ago. Then the Roman Empire fell and the Ottoman Empire invaded the Roman Empire's lands and took several areas, including Israel. Its just like having British control of India and saying that the Indians don't belong there because its British owned.

[Sanis Prent]

And then the Jews invaded a recently-freed British Palestinian state?

And your insane hypothetical is backwards. The Jews came in, and under British arms, KICKED THE PALESTINIANS OUT. It was a half-hearted "We're sorry that Hitler killed you all." that meant well, but created too many problems.

[Admiral Lebron]

The Jews retook their land. They would have done it sooner or later.

[Sanis Prent]

Oh thats such a steaming load. Without foreign support, organization, and influence (aka, Britain donating chunks of its collapsing empire), that would never happen. The Jews hadn't been a nation since the time of Masada! The factors that coalesced into the creation of the second Israel were a one in a million combination. Without a collapsing British empire, a Nazi Holocaust, and other such factors, there's no way that such a thing could have come to pass.

[Admiral Lebron]

It would have through devine intervention... and it did.

[Diego Van Derveld]

So God is giving the big thumbs up to wackos like Sharon?

I lump folks like that into the same loony bin as the Branch Davidians, sorry. Its one thing to be heavy-handed. I can't think of a single Israeli leader that wasn't. But you've got to balance it out. Rabin was an excellent leader because he also knew how to use diplomacy as well as violence. Netinyahu and Sharon just flood tanks into Gaza whenever Arafat passes gas. Its not any kind of attempt at achieving a solution.

[Admiral Lebron]

Its a policy. The Israeli people want it over by any means necessary. Sharon was elected because he said he'd get rid of the terrorism.

[Morgan Evanar]

Well, its obviously not working.

If the Israelis were REALLY clever, they would give everything up but Jerusalem, wait for some nasting suicide bombings, and point to the international community.

"Hey. We let them get almost all of what they wanted. This is how they repay us." I think then they could litterally slaughter a lot of palestinians in the name of anti-terrorism. Scary, but it might work.

[Diego Van Derveld]

The Final Solution was policy, too. That doesn't make it right. Sure, Sharon can "get rid of terrorism". If you kill all the Palestinians, there aren't any left to be terrorists. Doesn't it make you feel a *little* uncomfortable siding with a stance like that?

[Admiral Lebron]

My personal stance is more jurastic then the one Sharon has been showing.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with Sanis here, the Jews didn't own Jerusalem, the Romans kicked the out after the Jewish revolt around 120 AD they didn't come back until the 1930's that is a long time if you ask me. Speaking of the Ottomans it is wierd how the Jews and Muslims got along so well back then it wasn't that way with the Christians and Jews and the Muslims and Christians during the same time peroid. I hope there will be peace one day, I think a change of leadership in both camps could really help the situation.

[Admiral Lebron]

In all honesty, the Israeli's should get it all. The PLO can bugger off. The Israeli's turned into a swampland into farmland and made the area livable. They did in less then 50 years. The Muslims, Palastiens whatever, had it for a thousand years and did nothing to it. Not a darn thing. So yes, its not theirs.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Of course its really not applicable when you talk about that, because of time period, funding allowed, etc.

[Darth Viscera]

I think that in the long term, Israel's position is untenable. There are 150 million people in the immediate vicinity who want those 7 million jews out, more than 200 million if you count Egypt. It's a foregone conclusion that when those countries develop, if Israel is still massacring civilians, all those muslims will get even more pissed off and invade again. And they might not be defeated next time.

The Israelis are smart people. Their literacy rate is almost at the level of America's. They should realize that they live in a glass house, and they are lobbing thousands of stones. If Israel's leaders don't smarten up soon, history (at least non-muslim history) books will recall Israel as a brazen country which was wiped out through attrition after a life of only a few hundred years.

They should be putting their resources into peace initiatives like with Sadat, when Begin informed him that he was about to be assassinated in 1973 by Lybia (it was lybia, right?), and it led to peace talks. More Sadats, Begins and Rabins, no more Sharons or Netanyahus, for heaven's sake.

If Israel continues to burn bridges with its neighbors, I'm certain that will negatively affect its lifespan. A peaceful Israel, however, has hopes for living through the millenia.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Was it Libya that had Sadat assassinated? That was a sad event :(

[Darth Viscera]

It was 2 soldiers in the Egyptian army, I believe, using AK-47s and grenades during a military parade. Maybe Libya ordered them to join the egyptian army and kill the president, or maybe they were just posing as egyptian soldiers. They were riding in the back of an egyptian army truck, hopped out and popped him while he was sitting in the stands clapping.

[Diego Van Derveld]

I remember how it all went down, I just didn't know who funded it.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Well, its obviously not working.

If the Israelis were REALLY clever, they would give everything up but Jerusalem, wait for some nasting suicide bombings, and point to the international community.

"Hey. We let them get almost all of what they wanted. This is how they repay us." I think then they could litterally slaughter a lot of palestinians in the name of anti-terrorism. Scary, but it might work.


Of course, the Israelis almost did give up everything but Jerusalem at one point. Rabin offered quite a bit to Arafat, and Arafat basically gave a flat out "no" as a reply. But, I digress...

Modern day Israel does not equate to Biblical Israel... different times, different events... as has been pointed out, the Israel founded in 1948 would not exist had it not been for the given set of post-war circumstances.

The only problem with hoping that Israeli leaders start to change their tune is that the US still essentially "has their back," even with the administration saying they don't condone some of things that Sharon has done. It's easier to throw those stones when you have that kind of political and military clout beyond you. :\

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Without coming off sounding like a zealot, which Im not, I dont know how else to put this......

The Jewish people, the Israelis, are God's chosen. Youre saying that because of a long time span, Jerusalem belongs to others. It does not. God made them wander in the dessert. God chose Moses, had him lead the Israelis yet because of disobedience, refused to let him into 'the Promised Land'. Whose to say God isnt letting it happen again?

It doesnt matter who has occupied Jerusalem before or for how long. It belongs to the Jewish people. My personal belief in this is unshakeable. I dont have the political knowledge that Charley and some of the rest do. All I know is when God says it belongs to his people, it belongs to his people.

Im not about to argue against Him. :)

[Darth Viscera]

I beg your pardon, but hearsay and conjecture, be the conjecture religious or not, is not grounds for the expulsion of 6 million palestinians and the repeated massacre of unarmed civilians. Last time I checked, the high elected officials of Israel do not profess to play the part of a jewish ayatollah.

Besides, how do you know that the Palestinians aren't Allah's chosen? How do you know that it isn't Allah's divine plan that the Palestinians be massacred and misplaced for 60 years, but still cling to their homelands? I don't think that any person on this planet is qualified to testify as to the political intentions of a diety, especially in matters pertaining to the very foundations of a state.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lady Daiquiri
Without coming off sounding like a zealot, which Im not, I dont know how else to put this......

The Jewish people, the Israelis, are God's chosen. Youre saying that because of a long time span, Jerusalem belongs to others. It does not. God made them wander in the dessert. God chose Moses, had him lead the Israelis yet because of disobedience, refused to let him into 'the Promised Land'. Whose to say God isnt letting it happen again?

It doesnt matter who has occupied Jerusalem before or for how long. It belongs to the Jewish people. My personal belief in this is unshakeable. I dont have the political knowledge that Charley and some of the rest do. All I know is when God says it belongs to his people, it belongs to his people.

Im not about to argue against Him.


That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the Israelis are doing some pretty nasty stuff to the Palestinians right now, or that Sharon is essentially a war monger. He would like nothing more than to see the Palestinians wiped out. I have a big problem with that kind of barbarism being carried out in the name of any diety. Jerusalem, over the centuries, has become a city of major religious significance to Christianity and Islam as well. When religion enters the argument as a guise for a political claim, you get a mess. They were called the Crusades. Lots of people died.


But I'm not going to let this turn into a religious argument, as it will be cyclical and serve only to upset people. I shall hold my tongue from further comment.

[Denali Gue]

I said nothing about shipping the Palestinians out of Israel. I did not say that I condone what was recently done. I stated my belief of ownership and that was all.

[Morgan Evanar]

While this risks becoming a religious debate

Im not about to argue against Him. This arguement doesn't work. Everyone who's religious has a text backing them that says they're God's people, pretty much.

So who's right? IMO, that arguement is insane and simply shouldn't factor into anyone's decisionmaking, because the flat out is no one can really know unless the Big G speaks from the clouds and goes
"Yo. These be my people. Leave 'em alone or there wil be words, ya hear?"

Besides, a man/woman wrote all that stuff down. Its autmatically suspect.

Back to the topic at hand:
I think Isreal would be a lot more moderate if it didn't have our backing. I don't follow their politics much, but they do seem to hold genuine elections that have much better idea represenation than our own system. There is a political party who's main platform is pot legalization. o_O

So we continue to back them because they're democratic, and pretty much the only really democratic nation in the middle east.

There has to be a balance between support and and not supporting slaughter. I just don't know where it is.

[ReaperFett]

I think Isreal would be a lot more moderate if it didn't have our backing
I agree 100%

[Jedieb]

One land, several different viewpoints. Which brings me back to Dutchy's earlier point;

It doesn't really matter what leader Israel has. As long as Jeruzalem exists they will never have peace there.

Look at how many different views of the Israeli/Palestinian situation we have right here in this thread. We could go back and forth for pages and nothing would get resolved AND WE DON'T EVEN LIVE THERE. We're not getting bombed as we sit in our cafes. We're not getting killed by soldiers in retaliation for the previous week's bus explosion. I honestly don't see a resolution in the near future. There's also one thing that keeps nagging at me. During the Gulf War one of the keys to success was keeping Israel OUT of the conflict. Bush Sr. did an outstanding job of talking the Israelis out of any kind of retaliation. And believe me, when the first Scuds started falling Bush himself was on the phone talking the Israelis down. When this next war comes how will W. stop the Israelis from retaliating when Saddam tries to draw them into the conflict? Saddam has EVERYTHING to lose this time. If he bombed Israel before why wouldn't he do the same thing this time around? Especially if his very existance is on the line. This current Israeli government doesn't strike me as having the temperment to hold back. If they retaliate you've probably got a nice big fat holy war on your hands. It's a worse case scenario, but not a far fetched one. Especially when you've got got former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff espousing it.

[Jedieb]

A nice read:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/index.html

[Morgan Evanar]

If he bombs Isreal I doubt we can hold them back this time. There would be swarms of Apaches and Falcons in the air, and they'd just level the Presidential quarters or whever they think Sadam is.

As inneffective as Sharon's policy against the Palestinians is, he doesn't screw around when his people are attacked. Pound for pound they are the most effective and most used armed force in the world, and it would be pretty stupid to provoke them.

[Jedieb]

Agreed, it would be stupid to provoke them. Which is why I think Saddam will do it. The invasion of Kuwait wasn't a bright idea in retrospect. How did he expect to hold on to it? Bombing Israel the first time only made sense in that Saddam WANTED them to retaliate. He wants Israel to get involved. If he's going out I think he's going to try to take as many people with him as possible.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Yeah, Sharon's far too trigger happy to sit tight if Saddam starts lobbing things at him. This is an obvious concern, and one that is no doubt being considered.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to provoke the Israelis. I r decently read and all, but in the scheme of things pissing off them doesn't make any sense to me.

(But this is the real world, and sense might not apply.)

[Diego Van Derveld]

Well, Saddam's an optimist, I guess? He assumes that he can do this, and that geiger counters in Baghdad won't short out. For all of our sakes, I hope he's right! All we can hope is that Israel sees that the coallition has overwhelming military superiority, and will have the situation well in hand, and will keep the leash on, in regards to the IDF.

[Admiral Lebron]

Ya know, Dubya might want Saddam to attack Israel. So Israel attacks back, then the Arab nations all attack Israel and the US steps in and occupies all the nations that Israel and his buddies get more oil.

[Sanis Prent]

Were the neurons firing in your brain connected to the neurons in your fingers just now? You couldn't be more nuts than if you packed your bags for a one-way ticket on Hale-Bopp. The really messed up part about it is, you're probably serious.

[Admiral Lebron]

I was critisizing Bush. He is a crappy leader... damn the electorates!

[Sanis Prent]

I swear, if I ever end up on Survivor, I'm bringing you along. Give you an issue, and the friction in your head from trying to think should be plenty to start a camp fire.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

lmao!! Dont feel bad, Lebron. Ive actually expected him to say that to me one of these days :)

[Sanis Prent]

But the things you say are actually applicable, when you filter them with the "When I was your age..." bit ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Admiral Lebron
Ya know, Dubya might want Saddam to attack Israel. So Israel attacks back, then the Arab nations all attack Israel and the US steps in and occupies all the nations that Israel and his buddies get more oil.

Earth to Lebron. Not even Bush is that retarded.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

:shakefist

Ya know, Charley...if my walker had 4 wheels.....!!

;)

[Sanis Prent]

Then it would be a roller?

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to provoke the Israelis. I r decently read and all, but in the scheme of things pissing off them doesn't make any sense to me.

(But this is the real world, and sense might not apply.)

How much sense do you expect an evil madman who's trying to become the next Saladin as he dies to make? He is not a sane man. He thinks that if he deals a diminutive final blow to the Israelis, that he'll go down in moslim history books as a martyr and a courageous man who had the courage to stand up against the overwhelming might of the invading infidels.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Or a wheelchair...OH!...a motorized scooter!! Yeah! :D

[Sanis Prent]

(Tosses can of ensure)

Don't break a hip :)

[Sanis Prent]

And am I the only one who looks at the title of this thread and sees "Israeli attack on Jambalaya"?

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

*rolls over Charley* You forgot my Depends! :mad

[Sanis Prent]

:uhoh...not the best thing to forget when I'm being rolled over by you :x

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Could get messy ;)

And, no youre not. Ive thought that from the first, LOL!! Im glad Im not the only one who 'sees' things! :D

[Sanis Prent]

Guess I'm just hungry :(

[Admiral Lebron]

Not even Bush is that retarded


Bectha 10 US you're wrong... sadly...

[Sanis Prent]

FREE MONEY!

[Morgan Evanar]

Yah, sorry. As much as I think the war (and war in general) is a rotten idea, you're out of ten bux. Thats insane. Crazier than Sadam.

Besides, if Isreal retaliates, its retaliation *shrugs* We'd probably back them if the fit hit the shan.

[Admiral Lebron]

He's lookin' out for his oil buddies...

[Sanis Prent]

So naturally he'll do whatever he can to support an all-out regional war that could degenerate into an Israeli nuclear exchange?

Hey, I've got a conspiracy theory for you. The government's put a secret probe in you, to monitor how you think.

Oh wait.

Thats not a probe.

Thats my boot, in your butt...you silly, silly little boy!

[Milivikal k'Vik]

He's lookin' out for his oil buddies...

Not to anywhere near that extreme. I'm sure he does, but even Bush probablly dismisses a nuclear exchange with Isreal as an option.

Goodness, you're terribly ignorant, Lebron.

[Admiral Lebron]

Silly boy eh? Haven't heard that one in a while. Besides, what if saddam does nuke Israel as a "if I'm going down, so are they" type of situation? You think the Israel won't do anything? And do you think that the nations around it that want a reason for war would sit back and miss their big shot?

[Sanis Prent]

If Saddam nukes Israel (assuming he has the hypothetical bomb, and whatever 2nd-hand payload delivery system he uses isn't snagged by Arrow or Patriot batteries) then no country would touch Iraq, not even with a 10 foot pole. Even in the Islamic nations, Iraq would be an utter parriah, much moreso than they already are.

[Jedieb]

The worst Saddam would do to Israel IMO is deliver some kind of chemical weapon. I don't think anybody wants to see Israel retaliate. I'm not so much worried about what damage they would do to Baghdad as much as what the Arab reaction would be to an Israel AND American attack on Iraq. W. has to keep them out of the war. I just don't know if he can.