Israel defending itself

Israel has the right to defend itself against ongoing rocket and suicide attacks against innocent civilians, and that includes targeting the terrorists, their rocket launchers and their weapon storehouses.

Sadly, many Palestinians commit war crimes by placing their weapons and terrorists within heavily populated Palestinian civilian areas. Out of respect for innocent civilians, Israel does its best to avoid harming non-combatants. But any Palestinian civilians inadvertently hurt when Israel strikes back against terrorists and their weapons are the fault of the Palestinians who use the civilians as human shields.

Most amazing and distressing is the lack of outrage and condemnation by the United Nations of these acts of terrorism.

Paul Wacknov
Leawood

Comments

[solomon]

Engineer,

Animal Farm was required reading where I went to high school.

This high moral ground is the realm of rhetoric, as you have correctly defined the high ground as being what counts in reality. Thats all I have been saying here.

[Engineer]

solomon
"...please indulge me with some answers on my good guy/bad guy post earlier....." I, for one, have never believed things were all one way. Perhaps WWII and Korea came as close to it as any, but as you have pointed out some things were done in WWII that were very questionable. From my military experience it seemed to me that you worried about the high ground but "the high moral ground" was not a concept that received a lot of consideration. My opinion might be likened to a misquote of George Orwell: "No animal is perfect, but some animals are closer to being perfect than are others".

[solomon]

Hey Engineer, (and anyone else)

Before this thread ends tonight and is replaced with threads about dead bodies, traffic laws and paper or plastic...please indulge me with some answers on my good guy/bad guy post earlier.....

I enjoy you all and hope you appreciate that.

[solomon]

Engineer,

The nation of Israel would be a third world country without US aid, unable to sustain its standard of living. The nation of Israel would not have the strongest military in the Middle east without US aid. The nation of Israel would not be the only nuclear power in the Middle east without our aid and acceptance. They would cease to exist without US aid.

If thats not the ultimate welfare what is?

The fact is they exist and in that fact everything else must be dealt with, my objection was to the high moral tone of the letter writer.

Forgive me for using the term 'rail" to describe your opinion of social programs to benefit American citizens. I should have have said you find programs geared to people you deem unacceptable to receive aid from our tax dollars distasteful.

[Engineer]

solomon
I don't believe that all of Israel's accomplishments have been due to US aid. Of course, if they have made effective and productive use of that aid that alone makes them unique among the Nations that have received that aid. Israel is under attack, you agree they have a right to defend themselves, so what's your beef? As to your charge that "You, I believe, would rather see our tax dollars go to Israel than to our social welfare programs you rail against here in these threads", please quote or cite where I have railed against such programs. I have said they should be limited to those who cannot help themselves. I have also contended that excessive social programs give rise to a welfare class. It seems to me that this was proved by the results of welfare reform. It has been said that a government that persists in protecting fools from the results of their folly will inevitably be overrun by fools.

[solomon]

Good evening Engineer,

Once again, to the music now, I've never said Israel does not have the right to defend themselves. I just think this higher moral ground argument when they are an expansionist country with thousands of political prisoners has no merit. They have accomplished a lot, that is true, but they have done it with our tax dollars. You, I believe, would rather see our tax dollars go to Israel than to our social welfare programs you rail against here in these threads. money for Israel to thrive but screw our homeless and disadvantaged. Now before you make me a Dem or a Liberal off of that statement, read it again. I am only saying take care of our own first.

I know you feel that if we'd only conquered the entire continent everything would be better. Us white folks are better equipped to run things. That is the supremacist in you. Hey, its not an insult, its who we are as a nation.

[Engineer]

solomon-good afternoon.
It seems to me you are busily engaged in beating a dead horse. So we were unfair to the Native Americans. Yes and I will willingly accept the portion of Michigan owed to me from one section of my ancestors. But really, the actions of urn white ancestors have worked out well for all of us on this blog. Yes, we did get a lot of territory from Mexico. Perhaps everyone in North America would be better off today if we had taken over the entire Country after we defeated it. The present situation is that Israel is an existing, thriving Country. It has accomplished much more than any other country in the area. Are you contending they should not defend themselves? How do you contend they should respond to incessant rocket attacks?

[solomon]

jack(louie),

That is my constant throughout all of my posts here. The entire right or wrong, good guy or bad guy thing is all about what we are willing to admit, not what we are willing to accept. Timur was a brutal conqueror, the British were spreading Christianity and civilization. The current regime in Darfur is committing genocide, our establishment of the US was manifest destiny. Iran is meddling in affairs of their neighbors, we took a third of our territory from the nation of Mexico.

I would not want to live anyplace but the US, (unless I get the powerball #s Saturday and can move to Tahiti), but this never ending denial that we are anything but right is just ridiculous.

God Bless America...and everybody else.

[jack]

As far as the Native Americans were concerned, the people moving onto, and claiming ownership of, their lands were ALL invaders. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, it is the exact same thing. All those who have moved in are on their land and are therefor invaders.

Not claiming they are "right". I don't know if there is a "right" in this mess.

I do think this would be a good spot for a large fence. Build a fence around the entire area. All of "Palestine". Israel included. Tell 'em, "No one comes in. No one comes out. You guys figure it out."

[solomon]

One more thing zenozac,

The allies bombed and killed many innocents in WWII in places where there were nothing but civilians. We did it to turn our enemies civilians against their governments, in both theatres. We bombed villages that were "suspected" of harboring the enemy in Nam. These are facts.

Good guy/Bad guy....not a STUPID game. It might embarrass you, but not me.

[solomon]

Good afternoon zenozac,

I take no side in the conflict because I have no kinship, real or imagined, with either side. War is hell. I don't know who first said it but it is very true. If you occupy my lands without my approval you are my enemy. We outsiders can only observe and comment, as you and I are doing here. You believe in the justification of the UN granting Jews a country where one did not exist to solve their "Jewish question". That is all you need to take sides.

My questions earlier were not stupid, but in answering them you'll have to admit that we have double standards. Pick one, any one.

You are right, dead is dead. You, me nor Paul Wackoff have any right to say who is dying on the side of justice.

[zenozac]

I am sorry Sol but this stance of yours and the resulting let's play games is STUPID. Sorry, I think you know I like your blog persona for the most part, but come on man. You go through life (on this blog) dodging any responsiblity to take a side.

They launch these attacks from the middle of neighborhoods daily. They are trying to kill as many people as possible on the Israeli side. What exactly is Irael to do. Say Oh well I guess we will just let them continue to bomb us and do nothing because innocents may get hurt? If you truly see no difference in the actions you are as blind as anyone I have ever known!

Yes dead is dead. So if I come over and chop you and your family to pieces that is the same to you as getting sick and dying!
(BTW, no actual threat proposed, just an anolgy)
There are obvious distinctions.

I will take wounded Knee for $2000 Alex. It was the gun running outlaws who engaged in a battle with the authorities fault.

[solomon]

I knew if I set one on the tee you'd connect. Care to double down?

BTW, the Germans had no doubt they were justified in what they were doing. It was their destiny.

[Rogue]

I'll play, "Hitler vs. Europe", definitely bad guy vs. good guys....

[solomon]

Rogue,

Its not that I see no difference, its that I see the result as the same, dead innocents. The term collateral damage is BS. You and I have both witnessed it.

Just for fun, pick any three of my good guy/bad guy scenarios. i'm sure we'll agree on at least one.

[Rogue]

Oh, I recall now we have had this discussion before. It seems you draw no difference between "collateral damage" and those who choose to target non-combatants as the result is the same, I remember now. Thanks for the clarification.

[solomon]

Good morning Rogue,

There is always an excuse for collateral damage. In our manifest destiny days the killing of natives was excused because it was done in actions to suppress the braves/terrorists/freedom fighters.

A Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighter kills innocents intentionally. The Israelis kill innocents because it can't be helped, its the Palestinians terrorists/freedom fighters fault.

The European and Americans who have carved out a country in the Middle East are a legitimate country because the UN said so. The locals never had a say.

I know I'll be accused of leading this off thread but its really not. Lets play good guys / bad guys. Zulus vs British....The Mahdi vs the British Empire....The Crusaders vs the local population...Custer vs Crazy Horse...Hitler vs Europe....The occupying forces vs the Boxer movement...Santa Anna vs the Texans at the Alamo....Alexander vs the numerous countries he subdued....the Persains vs the numerous countries they subdued....William the Conqueror vs the Saxons....

Pick any that you choose to, there are always two points of view.

[Rogue]

Dab burn Sol, I can usually follow you but that comment was like a knuckle curve, I lost it totatlly??!!

[solomon]

The same thing happened at Wounded Knee. It was the Native Americans fault.