Thread: Fighting Females.

BBC is correct

to add

The current crop of immigrants or for about the last 20 years are not Jewish state makers of the past they are more likely to be moving away from where they came than to Israel, this has created other problems like Neo Nazi teen age gangs ( the children of jewish immigrants) there is also a large jewish underclass, Black and Asian jews who are economically ostracized.
Next have a look at the birth place of Israelis leaders many came from the eastern block, this is the main indicator to there thinking ( if you understand eastern block thinking)
Lastly Israel has become a fractionalized society. in the past all these fractions were united in the defense of Israel and there only differences were over " when to attack" today the common course has diminished and the resulting gap between these fractions is widening resulting in violence between different jewish communities.

on the other hand the Palestinians have always been fractionalized, different groups jockeying for power positions and influence in the rest of the world, this is there main motivation, the destruction of Israel has only in reality caused to be a rally cry for each of these individual groups ( on the main) IN short why bite the hand that feeds you. its the same as saying Northern Ireland will never return to Ireland because Ireland hasn't got the DOE where the UK has.
its almost the same with the Palestinians and more so the Gaza strip, there utilities food, commerce and trade ( what there is of it) all comes from Israel.
the real problem is that there has never been any real individual organization to negotiate with, worse although each attempt for any such Palestinian organization to rise has been hampered by other Palestinian organizations, other Muslim nations and of course the Israelis themselves. if we were to look back at the start of the Israeli state 1948? it was the surrounding Muslim nation / forces that displaced Palestinian villages and not the Israelis ( with a few exceptions) it was the other Muslim nations who hampered the initial UN development programs etc etc.

although what i have written is quite simplex, i hope that it gives some insight to the problem over there and that there is no easy solution. if it was easy it would have happened already.

i should add, the only real force trying to pose a solution in steps in Iraq but obviously this would not be acceptable to the west. however Israel and Iraq have an interesting relationship ( if contradictory).
Iraq was up until 1953 ( i think) a democratic state, and a fast emerging power in the region, geographically they also so maintained quite good relations with the soviets. Now remember a lot on munitions and equipment was moved though Iraq to russia during WW2. in fact the majority was moved that way. during this time Iraq benefited but a reasonably modern armed force ( originally to defend the railways) and the best infrastructure in the region, add to this a high oil income after the war, this all lead to a stable and strong state that was by no means a western puppet. the solution to this problem, nutted out my the Poms and funded then implemented by the CIA was to over through the duly elected government of the democratic nation of Iraq and install a puppet dictator, The Shar, followed by his son. most of us can remember the rest.
its basically the same story in Burma.
so things are not always as they appear to be.

You've made some good points here

Originally Posted by BBC

Just depends what you can resort to. By your take, the Taliban are just about to take a licking from a technologically superior force.

The point I'm making is that tactically, goading a stronger opponent to attack you may obtain strategic gains for your cause, hearts and minds, international sympathy etc. but at what cost. Continued death and misery for your people. What I'm questioning here is the pain worth the gain ?
Re the Taliban. Didn't they start off as essentially "the defenders of the faith" in Russian controlled Afganistan and have the support of the US at the time ?
As for expecting the technically superior force to "win", I think that history has shown us that an idealogically committed force will ultimately overcome a morally corrupt one regardless of the technologys involved.

Originally Posted by BBC

In the end, the Israelis have all the watches and, the Palestinians have all the time. The demographics of the situation will eventually overcome the current situation. The Palestinians have a burgeoning population and, like any developed state, the Israeli birthrate is right down.

Watched a documentary yesterday about an Australian film showing how peace and tolerance is actually on the rise globally. It showed an Israeli primary school where Arab and Jewish kids were not segregated and learned to get on OK. Also had a Nigerian Iman and Christian cleric puting aside their differences and working towards peaceful co-existance in their community. Had a similiar tale in rural Kenya.
Quite uplifting really, perhaps there is hope for an enduring solution and not just a "final" one. Israels current hard line stance is perhaps understandable given the Palestinians election of Hamas whose avowed goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Don't see much hope of reconciliation whilst this goal remains Hamas' main credo.
Pity the adults can't get on as well as the primary school kids.

Originally Posted by BBC

Hence, their immigrant and settlement program, whereby they are trying to illegally stake out their turf for the future....the Germans used to call it...Lebensraum.

The big difference here of course is that Nazi Germany wanted the land AND the complete extermination of the population. Pretty much the same goal as Hamas' really.

Deano

Originally Posted by DeanoH

You've made some good points here
The point I'm making is that tactically, goading a stronger opponent to attack you may obtain strategic gains for your cause, hearts and minds, international sympathy etc. but at what cost. Continued death and misery for your people. What I'm questioning here is the pain worth the gain ?
Re the Taliban. Didn't they start off as essentially "the defenders of the faith" in Russian controlled Afganistan and have the support of the US at the time ? Deano

well actually the Talinban was a pakistani creation with a lot of support from the poms ( and kiwis french etc) aussies had other security problems at that time. where the US supported pakistan.they never really understood the taliban and were never really involved with them until the blowpipe disaster and its replacement with the stingers. the US tended to follow old pommy policy of funding warlords and different fighting groups with training usually being provided by others.
in the mean time the taliban grew stronger by using pakistani intelligence training and funds along with Palestinian recruiting methods and doctrine.
it has only been in the last 3-4 years that the US has become awear of the true existent of Pakistanis involvement, although everyone else did know.

Originally Posted by DeanoH

As for expecting the technically superior force to "win", I think that history has shown us that an idealogically committed force will ultimately overcome a morally corrupt one regardless of the technologys involved. Deano

on the contrary, history has shown that a force with tenacity and time can over come a technically superior one. morals have nothing to do with it. if we were to look most non western forces they all tend to be corrupt in some form or another, paying for promotion, the selling of arms and stores to who ever even the enemy etc

Originally Posted by DeanoH

Watched a documentary yesterday about an Australian film showing how peace and tolerance is actually on the rise globally. It showed an Israeli primary school where Arab and Jewish kids were not segregated and learned to get on OK. Also had a Nigerian Iman and Christian cleric puting aside their differences and working towards peaceful co-existance in their community. Had a similiar tale in rural Kenya.
Quite uplifting really, perhaps there is hope for an enduring solution and not just a "final" one. Israels current hard line stance is perhaps understandable given the Palestinians election of Hamas whose avowed goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Don't see much hope of reconciliation whilst this goal remains Hamas' main credo.
Pity the adults can't get on as well as the primary school kids.Deano

Yes a very nice sponsored bit of international propaganda.

Hamas recruiting pitch is the destruction of Israel, it works very well on the poor uneducated, just blame Israel for why they are not driving a merc and have 3 wife's. Hamas has goals but it is more of a control, unite and make money for the boys at the top as well as promoting there brand of Islam. oh and there leaders who live in another country.

Originally Posted by DeanoH

big difference here of course is that Nazi Germany wanted the land AND the complete extermination of the population. Pretty much the same goal as Hamas' really.Deano

wrong on both accounts, The Nazis wished to enslave the slavic races not exterminate, that was reserved for the jews and Gipsies ( who share some common ancestry). Hamas wants control not extermination. if there was no Israel then Hamas would have no reason to exist, Hamas is dependent on Israel for its existence.

DeanoH & clean32,

Well reasoned and articulated debates developing here from both of you. It has come away though, from the intent of the thread.

I put the Gaza War story in from my friend to demonstrate the position of a female in a conflict zone, albeit that she was not a combatant bearing arms. This though, did not prevent one side of the conflict shooting at her in her car. I think if she had been bearing arms she would have been killed.

Should we continue the question of human conflict (specifically the Israel/Palestine question) here, or take it to a seperate thread? Much to be discussed and debated. It all comes down to the human condition and how one culture sees themselves in relation to another.

Cheers,

BBC

Isnt there an old saying that goes along the lines of: fighting for peace like rooting for virginity?

Old man Ghandi had it right in regards to peace, so to do the budhists, if you really want peace then you have to stop shooting the crap out of each other and treating each other with dignity and respect.

until both side of the fence can do that then there is no chance for peace

Here we go. We can discuss this all over again. I still think its wrong for the sharp end.

Didiman