Messages

Sounds good! ^_^

Hehe, the "interesting thread virus attacks again", eh?

Again, your example is flawed, so, it falls into (Imho) phallacy. Muslims don' t proclaim spanish territory their own nation, BUT nor did the Jews. What happened is that a sovereign country said, "This, the land that was mine, it' s now yours. I want it to be half arab, half Israelian. Israel said "coolio! A land for us... I proclaim this my country. Israel. The arabs who want to live here will be able to do it, they will be allowed to talk arab (It' s official in Israel) and practise their religion freely, if they want"

And a percetage of that arabs left Israel, thinking "Well... In two months this jews will be history, I will be back to my country, 100% free of Jews".

But that never happened... I understand that the Jews there, when the people who left the country with the desire of coming back soon in a "Jew free land" said "Hey, you know what, chap? You are not welcomed here". Even muslims Israelis do that.

It' s not that the Jews went there, and said "Hey! This is mine... Those who were here before, fuck you". It is that the previous owner said "I am leaving... share this land as good brothers while I am outside, eh?" and the brothers started to fight... and one won.

Sorry for the long post

I start from the finish: Replying to your question about "excessive force": I thought that Israel is using excessive force was out of discussion because it' s pretty obvious they are  I thought we were pressuming things, and this things are:

A)Civilians casualties are a tragedy.
B)Israel is going too far away.
C)We do not like wars.
D)Israel is playing dirty.

I thought that the discussion was more about "who really is more responsible". For me, if a boxer gives a severe beating to another in a fight, using dirty tricks, the cheater boxing is responsible of unfair play... BUT... if that boxer tells me "Hey! Have you seen the combat? The other guy bite my ear! I complained to the referee, he made nothing, after that, he threw a low punch, referee did nothing again, and then he hit my head with his, and the referee did nothing again... Who is responsible then?

The only possible replies to that boxing are:

A) You could go on fighting according to the rules, and try to win even against the dirty fight of the other (What Israel did during the ceasefire... a ceasefire Hamas broke coward and unilaterally) A tactic Israel used with Cisjordania, and worked well...

A-B Works.
A-C Does not work.

Who is the responsible then? According to ceteris Paribus condition, it must be C (Gaza).

OR

B) Hey... You are right. The other guy did not like rules? The referee did nothing to make the other guy following the rules? Congrats, well done with the dirty firghting...

I don't  know if I specifically mentioned that I endorse "B" (If I did it was a mistake, because I don't really do...) But I understand B, and I am so in the middle between A and B that it makes me not wanting to move a finger, or feel excesivelly bad when Israel took "B".

Now, example 2: You put the example of moors coming to Cadiz, settling there, and ask them "We will settle here, can we live in peace?" Well...

A) They are already doing it. Spain was the european country with less inmigrants 10 years ago. Now it's the first... So, to the "offer of living in peace together" we said "yes". Palestinians did not to Isralis. Israelis did with the muslim pupulation who remained on its terrain.

Side note: We are eving considering turning the Cathedral of Cordoba into a Mosque. (Which is silly, because, whereas it originally was a mosque, it became a cathedral and then, for years... A MUSEUM!)


B) You can't really compare. Spain is a sovereign country and "has allways been". Palestina didn' t. Allow me to paint the scenario to make they match competelly: If we lost the 1812 war and Spain was under France government, and in 1049 France said "Hey, Spaniards... We leave: Live in peace with this moors in am bringing to your land" I REALLY DOUBT we had called 6 or 7 friend countries to help us kill all the moors. (Something the arabs did).

So, as you can see, I put myself in the arab's shoes... and I simply think that they acted poorly.

And about your "great reputation" for arabs, I was not meaning nothing about Azadeh, I talked with her and I know she considers herself "Historically Persian", with everything it means toward Islam and the Arabs.  What I was really meaning is that I *think* (I can' t be sure because I never asked, now I am doing it...) that you must be inconsciently balanced to the arabs in the arab-israeli country because Israel means anything you dislike.

They do not believe in diplomacy, multi-lateralism, they trust on its alliance with the US, they are bellicistic and support free-market. I have the feeling that seeing how Israel exist must be a big "I was wrong" to any "let' s not deppend on the US", multilateralist pacifist socialdemocrat.

At least, if a socialdemocrat, multilateralist pacifist country survives and developes better without the help of the US than it's free market, belicists, US-friends neighbour counties I would think "Hey! My ideas about bellicism, unilateralism, alliance with the US and capitalism might be wrong..." and I would feel very insecure about that imaginary country... 

But I recommend you to ask yourself if your support of Gaza is because of that... I don' t know, maybe you are a bit balanced to support them because of that. I did the same, and I must recognise that I have allways been balanced to Israel because of similar reasons. 

That' s incorrect. The UN resolution made two countries, one for Arabs, one for hebrews. Israelis accepted the existance of the arab state. Arabs did not accept the existence of Israel... Anyway, hebrews called everybody, even Arabs, to stay and live peacefully (Actually, 30% of the nowadays population is arab, they are integrated and participate as "normal first class" citizens in the life of Israel). What Ben Gurion did on the 14th of may was declaring the independence of that Israeli country, so, doing what the UN told him to do. The "war" started on 15th, 6 hours later.

Do you really mean, Petter, that the Egyptian, Sirian, Transjordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi Arab, Yemenie and a Palestinian militia "magically appeared" in the boarders of Israel in 6 hours? Wow... I know you have arab culture in great reputation, but I didn't  know you thought they had teleporting...

The "Palestines" are the people who abandoned the, let' s call it "Hebrew contry according to UN resolution", expecting for the arab army to win, and come back as a conquerors to a "sionist blood" clean palestine. They lost the bet... Sorry!

And, let' s remember it... "Palestines" were not the owners of that land. Brits were. And brits told: "This land for hebrews, this for arabs". Who was not happy about it? Correct!

Be pacifist... But be it allways. Criticise the arab attack on the one day old Israel.

[1 day old]

You know why there are countries (US and ISRAEL) which do ignore the UN?

Because when Israel was 1 day old, Egypt, Siria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a Palestinian militia (Called the "holy Arab army") ignored the most important UN rosolution at the moment and attacked Israel with the determination of slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors.

What did the UN? Watch... and complain... Complain loudly, maybe. And nothing else.

That are the "neightbours" Israel has. That is the help Israel can expect from the UN.

Apparently, they learned the lesson. ^_^ And they learned it so well, that from those days come nowadays problems...

But Gaza' s population put Hamas in the government...

And about the "It will bring more hate, more terrorism...": Well... The Israelis did something similar in South Lebanon to stop Hizbullah' s attacks two years ago, and they succedded; So, maybe it's not "Hey! Israel is bombing us! Let' s reply with more bombs!" but "Hey... these Israelians fire back, let' s stop bombing them..."

What happened in Gaza has been a calculated and meditated hit in the table by Israel. Look, when the Al-Kassam' s started to fall in Sderot, after Hamas broke the cease fire unilaterally, Israel had two options:

A) Another selective killing, maybe ask for help to the UN or the international community and then more Al-Kassams. More of the same.
B) Do something else. Do a long, bloody (even assuming Israelis casualties) campaing. Try something else.

Israel even consulted the Egypt diplomatic party that was in Tel-Aviv trying to re-start the ceasefire. The official posture of these party was "No! No war!!!" but it is certain that the egyptian military aggregate said something like "Those Hamas guys deserve a lesson..." (It was published in DebKa file BEFORE the campaing started). 

That' s what Israel is doing: A lesson. It' s telling the world: "I don't mind what the UN says, what Amnisty International, the Human Rights or the international community say about the civilian casualties or what our own populations says about our dead soldiers... We will do what we consider necessary to stop those Al-Kassams or those Al-Khuds falling in our land".

The Hamas ceasefire break was coward and calculate: "There are elections soon in Israel, Ehud won't get into a campaign... Obama is going to enter in the White House in a month... Israel weon't do anything: We can lauch kill Israelians for free" Israel is saying "No, you won' t".

Does that I "like" seeing dead civilians? No. Does that mean that I support Israel? Not really, no... But I "understand" what they do. Here, comfortably sitting in my home, I could even say that I don' t support what Israel is doing. Maybe in Sderot I wouldn' t.

Idiot Andail... That' s battlestat gallactica... 

Dear Nacho, do you really think any of the people you see on television earn/get those two hundred and something Euro you spoke off? C'mon, most of them eat bread and water and they feel lucky!

And? Go to Hamas and complain to them for buying rockets to Iran in spite of bread for their kids...

I think that he means that if you REALLY care about animals, turn vegetarian. (I think that' s what he mean, that doesn' t mean I really agree...)

Your post basically say: "I do what I do because I am right..." So, more of the same... Pitty, my finger was in the "reset button" already. I don' t really mind, there are other 4,332 AGS members here to discuss with ^_^

And about the double standard in staying silent, read Andail' s posts again and notice that he made exactly the same you accussed me and RickJ to do. There is a post where he mentions "bias" not only once, but two...

Nothing I really care, because the king of picking something unconnected and make a big mountain of it it' s you, though... 

And now... Again to [Ignore Snarky] status. 

This time the glance has been a little deeper... "Nacho has a point" was bright as a light house.

Snarky, I appreciate your comments and your threads, they are interesting and give lots of information. But you do not only debate, you look more "how something is said" than "what is said", and use any dialectic slip to accuse your "rival" of being a bad person. Sorry, I don' t like that. That's what you did with me with my "Georgia is not Europe" (Nacho, you are a racist) with Darth's "Black people tend to majoritary vote Obama" (Darth, you are a racist) and with RickJ' s "You must learn more about the situation" (Rick, you are insulting your debate partners). Curiously, when the same thing is done by the side you are supporting at that time (for example, "Israel is bad, and if you don't agree with me it' s because you are severally biased") you say nothing.

It' s very usefull tactic to win debates, I know it because I used it a lot before, but doesn' t really contribute to the debates... It simply closes them.

If you tell me "Nacho, I wasn' t aware of that, I won' t do that with you again" or simply "Nacho, I think that your conception of what I do is wrong, I do not do that, but I you really think that I do that, I will be more carefull with you from now for the shake of frienship and good debating" I will start debating you again, "e-shake" your hand, and doing "tabula rasa", considering all I said to you, or what you said of me, forgotten. 

And sorry, Petter... I said I was going to get out of this debate, but if I see something, not only manifestly false, but also something which is totally the opposite to truth (It' s not only that Palestine DO NOT receive money, but also it' s the country which receives MORE MONEY) I think I should be allowed to make a little post. Similarly, something that has been said is also true (Israel's  settlings are growing); Israel is dismantling its settlings in Cisjordania (Since lots of years ago, 8 or 10...) and in Gaza (since two or three years ago, I think, when Sharon was the PM)

And well, Petter... You seem to mantion UN a lot. Palestines never give a fuck about the UN during 60 years. When they thought they were going to "stain the mediterranean in red with the blood of the Israelians" they didn' t had the UN resolutions in mind, I think... The UN had the opportunity to grant Israel's existance and did nothing else than "warnings", "severe warnings", "extremelly severe warnings" and "Extremelly annoyed and severe warnings" to its enemies. Israel has been figthing, receiving bites, low hits, splittings... and the "referee" (UN) has been watching the fight, seeing Israel' s complains about unfair game doing nothing with a half smile in its face. Now Israel said "Ok... I will play dirty as well!"

And it' s is preciselly now when the referee comes running to stop the fight? I can't understand (maybe not endorse, but understand) that Israel turns to the referee and says "You know chap? Fuck you, I will finish this alone!".

That' s why Israel, as well, doesn't want to give back to the first UN resolution and give back to the muslims what was told there to belong to them. Israel' s opinion there is clear "They did want war? Okay... so be it". Look that people showing no desire to fight with Israel has no problem at all with them. 30% of the Israel population were muslims who did not fled Palestine when the Arab community made a call to abandon the place because they were going to invade Israel. Israel has no problems (nowadays) with Jordan or Egypt. Not even with Cisjordania... Israel attacks those which attack it: Lebanon and Gaza. And has an eye with those which might want to attack as well... Siria and Iran.

I perfectly understand it. It has been proved to be a sensible tactic. 60 years ago no arab country wanted Israel to exist. Nowadays very few are still beligerant with it. Israel tactic' s working.

Miguel, Palestine is the country in the world which receives more euro per inhabitant in concept of aids from the rest of the world, 260 euros/inhabitant per year. 500 from Europe, approx. 200 from the US. If that is "no money at all" for you...

And now, please, explain me how the "you are uninformed" that "my side" use against "your side" is so evil and you haven't complained a bit when "your side" constantly says that "My side is obviously biased"... I think it's basically the same....

Snarky, you can save your energy if your threads are directed to me, I simply ignore them... I just know you did because I saw my name in a quote when I was scrolling down, but nothing else... Write to those who want to read what you say.

Sounds like a thread I can totally agree with. 

Might be. I remember the cypher of 60%, and I am quite sure about that... It might be refering to approval percentages at a certain point, though, I have nothing to doubt about your word. 

And about the "destruction of Israel" thing... I don' t really mind if in the manifesto the sentence is still there or not. Papers are papers, and must be supported by actions. If there is a situation where you archieved everything you asked for in your manifesto (independence, autonomy, no hebrew settlers, etc...) and you still do something (lauch rockets) it means that, no matter what you have "in papers", you still want to archieve something else. Actions speak louders than written intentions, I think...

Anyway, this is a very sensitive matter, and I' ve expressed myself awfully. I think the "I support Israel" sentence can be observed as I had an orgasm of joy every morning watching the news and seeing palestine kids covered in blood. I do not. I think that every civilian casualty is a tragedy, and that my "I support Israel" must be severelly revisted. I just mean that I have empathy with the citicens of Sderot, etc. because I' ve been a "target" of terrorism as well, whereas I can't see myself in the place of a Palestine since I' ve never been a target of counter terrorism, or did anything to be so.

Ho, ho! How pessimism do I notice! come on, America voted for the possiblity of a change, let' s give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Petter, I simply don' t agree ^_^. Gaza people simply elected a party who wants to destroy Israel. They chose war. They have war. I would be annoyed in a 2 meter high guy starts to beat an innocent 1,60 kid. But I see two big idiots happily running into a war. And now one is beating the other. One should have thought about it before start poking the eye of the other. I simply can' t have empathy for them.

People tell me: "Do you imagine Israel bombing your house?" How could I? The percentage of people voting to a party asking for the destruction of Israel HERE is 0.0%. In Gaza Strip it is 60%. I don' t see HERE 2/3 of the kids going to Hammas summer camps, with a signed paper by their parents accepting that by going to that camp they can be required to be suicide bombers in the future. Some pro-palestine basque friends I have tell me "Do you imagine your contry bombing mine?" How could I? In the Basque country there is a 5.5 % of people voting for a party who deffends violence to get independence. If that percentage changes to 60, and that party changes from "Violence to get the independence" to "Destruction of Spain", I would like my government to do something.

I can put myself in the side of both, Israelis and Palestinians, and I can say "If I was there, and I was Israelian, I would support what my government does". I can't say the same if I was an inhabitant of the Gaza strip.

Have you done the same? I think not. I think you have seen "Occidental, free market economy, belicist country attacks another". They must be evil. End of the discussion. Things are not like that... There are a lot of grays. I see the grays, and the conclussion is that Israel is "slightly" more right than the other side, IMHO.

Anyway, I concur that my opinion can be severilly biased in this topic. Since I was a kid I studied modern history of Middle Orient.

But Nacho, if the Israels have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, and Hamas has killed a handful of civilians in Israel, why are you using that quote to support Israel?

And no, it's not exactly the intentions that count, it's the actions. It would be a pretty darn strange world if you punished people for their thoughts and opinions and not their actions.

If someone throws a rock through your window, you don't bulldoze their house; and furthermore, if they hide in another house, you don't bulldoze that house too.

Truthfully, I'm completely appalled by some arguments used by Israel-supporters. "But we warn them before we bomb!" Wow, thank you, if only CIA had been warned before terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, it would have been all fine and dandy (oh wait, they were warned).

Lastly, Israel's attack is, as usual, counter-productive, since it will only increase the support for Hamas.

I support Israel because I have more empathy with them than with the people in Gaza strip. ETA put a bomb one kilometer away from my home and they have killed two people in less than 20 kms. from my house.

One girl I knew was killed in the terrorists attacks in Madrid. I feel "similar" to the people who is getting attacked with Kassams. I could die by a terrorist attack.

I don' t feel I am in danger of being a collateral victim of a bomb thrown by a country in an attempt to deffend theirselves. I consider very unlikely that, let's say, France, kills me trying to kill a member of a terrorist group who attacks France with rockets. I find very unlikely that in Spain the political side of a terrorist group who deffends slaughtering France wins with 60% of the votes.

I am sorry. I tend to go with the sides I consider similar to mines.

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing"

-Barack Hussein Obama.

There is something we must understand to go on with the discussion:

Israel CAN kill everybody in the Gaza strip. They just WANT to kill a portion (Hamas members).
Hamas (And Hamas is majority supported in the Gaza Strip) WANTS to kill everybody in Israel. They just CAN will a portion.

There are not "Good" or "bads". There is a side which is more effective than the other.