So, what is the difference....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

... Oh dear, another desktop general. US military is in no way prepared for another attack as it has no ready, strategic forces available and is already stretched to the limit...

C'mon - why not another "invasion lite"? Rational concerns have never stopped this administration before now.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Israel needs to make peace with it's neighbours, that's what I would do, but I'm not an Israelian, never can be, cause I'm not a Jew.

Assuming that we can't turn back time to when we all enraged those otherwise peaceful religous fanatics, your current answer to "What would you do?" is to negotiate with terrorists whose end position is that you should cease to exist.

Zat yer final answer?

BTW, you can be naturalized without being Jewish. That criticism is, I think, a thing of the past.

[Hippikos]

...that you should cease to exist.

That's a thing of the past. The general consensus in the Arab world is that if Israel pulls back behind the 1967 borders, a lasting peace can be reached.

Re terrorist, depends on which side you are. Ones freedom fighter is the others terrorist. Many of Israels Prime Ministers started their carreer as a terrorist.

Until now the policy of Israel is of military arrogance. The present war with Hizbollah will show if this arrogance is justified. Fighting with an asymetrical oppenent is quite different as to what they learn on West Point et all (as shown in Iraq).

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

What goes around comes around.

I think Maggie's link, while it has a pro-Israel slant, was very helpful. I have no reason to dispute its accuracy. Check it out.

[Hippikos]

BTW, you can be naturalized without being Jewish. That criticism is, I think, a thing of the past.

I'm afraid not. With the current stream of Russian immigrants a growing demand of striking the extended Law of Return is visible.

With only religious marriages recognized in Israel, the halachic issue raises certain dilemmas. How, for example, would a young man whose immigrant mother wasn't Jewish, but who served in the army and lives like any other secular Israeli, marry a girlfriend who is accepted as Jewish?

[Undertoad]

The general consensus in the Arab world is that if Israel pulls back behind the 1967 borders, a lasting peace can be reached.

That is not the position of Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran; and what do you make of the fact that they are being attacked at precisely the borders where they've pulled back, Lebanon and Gaza?

Re terrorist, depends on which side you are. Ones freedom fighter is the others terrorist. Many of Israels Prime Ministers started their carreer as a terrorist.

Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?

That's a pretty daunting assignment, mostly because the recividism rate appears to be 100%. There was even a comment earlier to the effect that criticisms of moral equivalance are just a conservative ploy..."the moral equivalance card".

I'm not sure that isn't self-referential.

[Griff]

Oops, I forgot to check the passports on the dead babies, my bad.

When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot. Usually, however, it is played to limit the parameters of the discussion, absolving the US or her client States of all responsibility for their actions because we are good and have never ever done a morally questionable act, which could lead some brown folks to hate our guts.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

because we are good and have never ever done a morally questionable act

Straw man.

[Griff]

Sorry but that's the way you guys come off.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

Sorry but that's the way you guys come off.

"You guys"? Who exactly is that?

Is there no space between "good and have never ever done a morally questionable act" and being morally equivalant to a terrorist who deliberatedly murders civilians? Or is defending oneself (in any way other than will meet the approval of folks who don't particularly give a shit) sufficient to establish this equivalance?

Because I don't buy that theory. It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. I'm not Christian enough for the "let him who is without sin" deal.

[Happy Monkey]

"Moral equivalency" is often a strawman, too. Usually used to say that you can't criticize one side for doing something if another side does something worse.

[Griff]

When you and UT defend Israeli and American actions you generally don't acknowlege the downside. That makes your arguments sound less credible. Of course an isolationist like myself finds almost all American actions in the mid east absurd. I don't know why the left has such a problem with militarism after all the Balkan idiocy.

[Undertoad]

Was it in this thread or the other where I admitted I don't know if the current action is a good idea?

[Griff]

Responding to your edit:

"It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. "

Weak comparison. When you defend yourself by killing your neighbors along with the burglar, you have a problem. Both sides are killing innocents. Israel accepts that innocents will die when the fire artillery into civilian populations where the crazies hide. Hezbolah does target civilians directly, that is worse intent but Israel kills more civilians, that is worse effect.

PS We are most definitely not in our home.