BF2S Forums Israelis don't want peace

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being those who scream the loudest about the Israeli situation are the very ones who enabled it.

I must've missed the bit where the British supported a Jewish state in Palestine. When was that then? It certainly wasn't in the Balfour Declaration (as later clarified in the White Paper and which was published to fulfill minimum legal requirements under the terms of the mandates drawn up by the League of Nations). So when was it?

You missed it because I never said it. I said the Europeans wanted the Jews out of Europe.

The support for a Jewish homeland anywhere but where the majority of the Jews were (Europe) enabled the Jewish homeland we have now (Israel) and the mess associated with it.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The British didn't, they supported allowing jews to resettle in Palestine, but no jewish state.
Source plz.

Provided already. Read it.

It sounds like that's exactly what you're saying here.

The British supported a Jewish state, just not one in Palestine.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

The are fighting over valueless desert?  But can't give it up without a price?

I guess that argument works one way right?

The point is the Israelies have no need to steal yet more, the Palestinians need it to live on.
They are stealing land for ideological reasons, not lack of space.

Maybe you should just let the mexicans into texas, after all, america is big enough - you don't need texas.

But we already let all the Mexicans into Texas...

...and no I don't agree with your point.  Because if they DID need it to live on, they wouldn't ask for payment for it.

...and it's the fighting FOR ideological reasons alone?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel doesn't want peace

The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.

It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?

Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.

The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads and from these initiatives as if from death itself.

Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements.

Written by those notorious anti-semites - Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846420.html

Seems as relevant now as ever.

Um. The person is more important as a source than the paper he writes it in, and this person seems to have been harping on about this for some time.

SEREMAKER wrote:

how much money is in war

Ask the US goverment, they've been doing it a while now.

FEOS wrote:

LostFate wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

how much money is in war

Ask the US goverment, they've been doing it a while now.

There's no money for government in war. It's horrendously wasteful for those who wage it.

Maybe not the government as an entity, but as individuals who get nice jobs with their mates in defence companies after their term in office there's plenty of cash.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's no money for government in war. It's horrendously wasteful for those who wage it.

Maybe not the government as an entity, but as individuals who get nice jobs with their mates in defence companies after their term in office there's plenty of cash.

But that's not what was said, now was it?

no, that's what I just said.

re the US government, there are plenty of people there now or who have been in it who have/will get nice jobs with defence contractors when their term is up...

FEOS wrote:

Replace "US" with any of several other nations. There are lucrative jobs in the defense industry of any country that produces that kind of good/service. China. Russia. Israel. Sweden. South Africa. France. England. Germany. Brazil. They're all over.

yeah yeah I know, but the US was mentioned. War is profitable. Very profitable for some people. That's my only point here. There are US companies, including former US government officials I'm certain, making lots of money out of war, including in Israel and Palestine. And yes, there are companies in other countries who also make a lot of money out of it.

on a sidenote:

not that i would say israel's wall in the west bank is a great idea, but it seems to work. i haven't heard of a suicide bombing in israel for ages...

"Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has substantially reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, and Israeli officials assert that completion of the barrier will make it even more effective in stopping these attacks since "An absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed". Israel's state comptroller, however, notes that most of the suicide bombers crossed into Israel through existing checkpoints.

Israeli officers (including the head of the Shin Bet) quoted in the newspaper Maariv  have said that in the areas where the barrier was complete, the number of hostile infiltrations has decreased to almost zero. Maariv also stated that Palestinian militants, including a senior member of Islamic Jihad, had confirmed that the barrier made it much harder to conduct attacks inside Israel. Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarm and Qalqilyah  in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas. All attacks were intercepted or the suicide bombers detonated prematurely. In a March 23, 2008 interview, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah complained to the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq that the separation barrier "limits the ability of the resistance to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks, but the resistance has not surrendered or become helpless, and is looking for other ways to cope with the requirements of every stage" of the intifada.

However, there is debate over how effective the barrier has been in preventing other attacks. A report by the Shin Beit, published in early 2006 notes that attacks in 2005 have significantly decreased due to increased pursuing of Palestinian militants by the Israeli army and intelligence organizations, Hamas's increased political activity, and a truce among Palestinian militant groups in the Palestinian Territories. According to Haaretz  the report also mentions that "The security fence is no longer mentioned as the major factor in preventing suicide bombings, mainly because the terrorists have found ways to bypass it." Former Israeli Secretary of Defence Moshe Arens claims that the reduction in Palestinian violence is largely due to the IDF's entry into the West Bank in 2002."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_We … i_security

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There is no doubt war is profitable for some people--profit can be found in nearly every circumstance, if one knows where to look and can take advantage of the opportunity. But that is not the statement that was made.

The statement that was made was that it was profitable for governments, specifically the US government.

Your statement, while true, had nothing to do with the original (erroneous) point that governments profit from war.

not sure I entirely agree. How do you define the statement 'governments benefit from war'? Do you mean the govt in terms of the country (as in the country's representatives), or as individual members of the govt, or as a political party, or what? 'Governments' certainly can benefit from war - just look at Thatcher and the Falklands conflict. Her government got reelected on the back of it, and many of her cabinet made lots of money working and advising for defence contractors. You could argue that the nation also benefits from war as certain industries increase their profits, money enters the economy, jobs are secured etc. So I'd say that the US (and many other) government(s) certainly can be said to benefit from war in many ways, not only those ways described above. Of course, a lost war doesn't help governments nearly as much, certainly in terms of public affection, which is one contributing factor to the loss of power for Bush's government, but any conflict using large amounts of munitions can be argued to 'benefit' the country and by extension the government that makes them, albeit not the country that gets them delivered from great heights or from the barrel of a gun.

I meant it exactly in the context as implied in the original statement: monetary profit. Of course countries can (and do) benefit in other (non-monetary) ways from war. Otherwise, they wouldn't wage it.

not being from israel, palestine, or the US....nor does this truly affect your everyday life.......i fail to see why you care so much and are so obsessed with this.

ok....so why no threads about africa then?