[illerlytoindy]

Don't worry, my nemesis, they're still killing each other.

[Inettypofonee]

one of the hamas operatives we killed lately turned out to be the son of mahmoud al-zahar (leading hamas figure in the gaza strip).
So Hamas increased the rocket showers and we increased our fire in return. happy days.
nothing especially new.

[iOqedeyH]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
one of the hamas operatives we killed lately turned out to be the son of mahmoud al-zahar (leading hamas figure in the gaza strip).
So Hamas increased the rocket showers and we increased our fire in return. happy days.
nothing especially new. I read (yesterday, IIRC) in Haaretz that Abbas took the opportunity and called al-zahar to offer him his condolences, and that this was the first time that Abbas officially spoke with someone from Hamas in a long time... Of course, there was people who thought that was an opportunity to make peace between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza

[limpoporanique]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't worry, my nemesis, they're still killing each other. didn't he ask for news?

[Peptobismol]

IIRC Bush just got back from Israel. He gave negotiating peace between the Fatah regime in the West Bank and Israel a whopping 2 days of effort before proclaiming that working out a peace between Israel and Palestine was going to be really hard and that it would require tough sacrifices.

Clearly the man is in line for the next Nobel peace prize.

[MpbY5dkR]

Originally posted by Pekka
What about a new strategy?

From outside countries that is. I think we should be saying to these guys that they must fight, they can't get along so they have to fight. Maybe it will have a different outcome? Who knows, but the old stuff hasn't been really working so time to change the strategy? I think that there's a good point in that.

Modern wars are usually not allowed to be fully played out by the international community. There is almost never a clear victor, and the winning side is not allowed to take actions to consolidate his victory once major hostilities ended.

This leads to a condition where no side is allowed to handle the final decisive blow, and effectively end the conflict - one way or another. The losing side is prevented from being totally crushed by international intervention, hoping that this will lead both sides to end hostilities and prevent unnecessary bloodshed.

What effectively happens is that the losing side, having not received a final blow, keeps hope, and refuses to accept loss and come to terms with a new reality.


For years now, losing sides do not accept defeat, and thus the conflict is never really over, because the reason for conflict is still there, and both sides are motivated to fight (one side thinks he's winning, and the other side thinks he hasn't really lost yet).

Instead of a clear victory and acceptance of a new terms of settlement, each conflict is dragged out into a long tedious low intensity guerilla battle, which does not end and in the long run, costs more innocent lives and brings about more bloodshed.

I think it is bad for the international community and I think it is really bad for the innocent civilians.

Imagine how many would have died if someone stopped WWII before the Nazi regime was crushed, and the Japanese have surrendered following the A-Bomb. There would have remained pockets of resistance and the conflict would have dragged on for years.

[KJnbceja]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I think that there's a good point in that.

Modern wars are usually not allowed to be fully played out by the international community. There is almost never a clear victor, and the winning side is not allowed to take actions to consolidate his victory once major hostilities ended.

This leads to a condition where no side is allowed to handle the final decisive blow, and effectively end the conflict - one way or another. The losing side is prevented from being totally crushed by international intervention, hoping that this will lead both sides to end hostilities and prevent unnecessary bloodshed.

What effectively happens is that the losing side, having not received a final blow, keeps hope, and refuses to accept loss and come to terms with a new reality.


For years now, losing sides do not accept defeat, and thus the conflict is never really over, because the reason for conflict is still there, and both sides are motivated to fight (one side thinks he's winning, and the other side thinks he hasn't really lost yet).

Instead of a clear victory and acceptance of a new terms of settlement, each conflict is dragged out into a long tedious low intensity guerilla battle, which does not end and in the long run, costs more innocent lives and brings about more bloodshed.

I think it is bad for the international community and I think it is really bad for the innocent civilians.

Imagine how many would have died if someone stopped WWII before the Nazi regime was crushed, and the Japanese have surrendered following the A-Bomb. There would have remained pockets of resistance and the conflict would have dragged on for years. I agree that sometimes a final blow is needed for peace to come. Another example that comes to mind: if there was no German military men that though they were backstabbed due to the surrender of Germany in WWI - i.e., if WWI would have continued a few weeks more, maybe there would have not been a WWII.

However, I think that that, at historical point we are now, it will not be possible to make the clock go back and destroy Hamas and Fatah. It would have been interesting, if Israel wanted to separate herself from Gaza and West Bank, that the people in charge would have been the non-PLO local administration that Israel setup before the Oslo Teatry instead of Araft. That would have created a very different scenario, and, maybe, there would be peace right now.

[PebydataFeents]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well surely that was just a joke

I mean take Japan and US for example. It was a case of succesful operation after the war, but it was extremely intrusive. [...]

This doesn't apply to current situation. First of all, Japan was pretty much alone. Now, if you want ot do the same to an arab country, there's always a possibility of heated tensions outside the region that can have unpredictable following. [...]

You don't want to totally submit the other one and take their pride and culture away. THat's how enemies forever are made. No, but you know what the US did to make the Japanese totally and utterly submit?
They used 2 nuclear weapons.

After that, the road was clear for setting up a new reality, and no Japanese fellow resisted.

Second of all, if Israel was fully unleashed on Palestine, I mean what kind of a fight is that? A modern army that is willing to go toe to toe against... what seems like bandits to me. So how do you do that exactly? HOw do you not piss off everyone in the process? I don't know what a great solution is.

I do think that 2006 could have been won differently had we conquered Lebanon again, and killed off most Hezbullah activists, and only then retreated with the Lebanese army taking our place.

Thirdly, Palestinians are a people and currently dysfunctional body of the people in terms of authority and just order in general. You can't create a good base from that at the moment even if you could hand pick everyone. They would have no respect of the people anyway, so it won't work. I agree with that, which is why I can't see a good way out of this conflict.

They are too torn up inside to deside.

So no. I don't see a fair fight solving the problem, and it wouldn't be a fair fight to begin with. So no Siro, you aren't allowed to go and kill bunch of people Bummer

[CaseyFan]

However, I think that that, at historical point we are now, it will not be possible to make the clock go back and destroy Hamas and Fatah. It would have been interesting, if Israel wanted to separate herself from Gaza and West Bank, that the people in charge would have been the non-PLO local administration that Israel setup before the Oslo Teatry instead of Araft. That would have created a very different scenario, and, maybe, there would be peace right now. I agree.
The Oslo process nurtured lots of dissatisfaction and hatred between both peoples.

Had Israel accepted the London agreement with King Hussein, I think we'd have seen the Palestinian problem solved.

[HcMkOKiz]

Originally posted by germanos
Siro, I think the Jews are the prime example that ancient ways have not been more effective in permanently subjecting the conquered good point

[epPtsDno]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

good point

[Heliosprime]

Originally posted by VetLegion
When did the Greek Empire (what is that anyway? Empire of Alexander the Great?), the Byzantine Empire and the Soviet Union try to destroy the Jewish People? greek empire - antiouchus epiphanes fought a small jewish rebellion which sort of succeeded and gave us the holiday of hannuka,
the byzantine empire was quite nasty to jews
and the soviet union, starting with stalin's doctors' trials, started persecuting jews on the basis that they are capitalist and pro-nationalist (israel). the USSR then became radically anti-Israeli, and promoted anti-jewish sentiments as well.

[infarrelisam]

Originally posted by VetLegion
When did the Greek Empire (what is that anyway? Empire of Alexander the Great?), the Byzantine Empire and the Soviet Union try to destroy the Jewish People? the most famous confrontation between Greeks and Jews was the Maccabean Revolt of 167-164 B.C.E. The Seleucid king Antiochus IV imposed Greek religious customs on the Jews and tried to convert the Jewish temple in Jerusalem into a temple to the Greek god, Zeus. The Jewish revolt, led by the Hasmonean Judas Maccabee, defeated the Seleucid armies and recaptured the temple. After the revolt, many Hellenized Jews left Judea and moved to Hellenistic commercial centers such as Alexandria and Antioch.

[Kk21pwa9]

It persecuted, but it persecuted other people too. If Stalin wanted to get rid of Jews he would have moved them all to that Siberian oblast designated for them. Some historians claim that he intended to do just that, but was killed before he had a chance to do it.

[ansarigf]

That's quite true, didn't the Japonese even try to lure the Jews who settled there into their territory?

[Thomas12400]

Well it's easy to be pro-Israel. They're a basically European country in a desert, a bit poorer than they could be due to all the defense spending.

Think up reasons for being pro-Arab if you want to brag about something.

[mymnarorump]

Wouldn't nimble-minded be a compliment? You confuse me

[verybigf]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Wouldn't nimble-minded be a compliment? You confuse me english skillz
i has them not

[TriammaMade]

Yeah, except even that is something to brag about. It's trendy. You don't need to be enlightened to support Dubya. in fact, all the people who brag will bash you for it.

[Loovikeillilen]

I'm a couch warrior. I don't want real danger