Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ?

  1. yes

    7 vote(s)
  2. no

    4 vote(s)
  3. not sure

    1 vote(s)
  1. Aug 1, 2006 #1
    is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ??

    is it fair that america gets the blame for israels actions ??

    what do you think
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 1, 2006 #2
    the US has enough illegal actions of it's own... naplam bombing, nuclear bombing were in the past, recently it was the prisoners in iraq.. soldier abuse of civilians... if you'd look hard enough you'd find more..

    is Iran syria being blamed for the illegal actions of hizbullah?

    are you talking about recent illegal actions Israel did?
    can you elaborate?
  4. Aug 1, 2006 #3
    the investigation is still being conducted on the bombed UN case, Israel claims it wasn't a deliberate bombing, so it's not illegal just yet.

    as for past actions - israelli illegal actions seems to be a valid argument even if they were before the independance of Israel.. (eg "israel terrorist organization" anttech likes to mantion).

    and what does qatar have to do with israel's illegal actions?
  5. Aug 1, 2006 #4
    What the!?
  6. Aug 1, 2006 #5
    i think the questions are
    1.who is to blame for the UN deaths the person who guided the precision weapon onto the UN or the person above him or gave the order, the post had been there for 20 years its not like israel didnt know it was there.
    2.Why was there only one country in the entire world that vetoed a resolution against israel
    3.how can we ensure that the will of the international community is enforced and israel is held accountable for her illegal activities

    qatar vetoed a resolution against irans nuclear weapons, we are now seeing american allies turning away from her because of israels illegal actions.
  7. Aug 1, 2006 #6
    Dont put words in my mouth, I never said anything like this. Please either show me where I said this, or retract that statement!

    As for the original question. The States are not directly responsible for the actions of Israel. Israel is responsible, although the USA government backs Israel's hardline stance, and has been using its media to spin the reason for this new war from "Kidnapped Israeli soldiers" to the current reason of "Hezbollah firing rockets at civilians"

    Hezbollah did actually say at the beginning of this conflict that they were willing to negotiation (whether or not they were actually going to is speculation but they said it) Israel didnt want to, and instead now have almost 1 Million Displaced civilians and >400 dead in Lebanon and < than 20 Civilians killed in Israel. I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Hezbollah are targeting only civilians where it seems their ratio of Soldiers killed to civilians is WAY better than Israel's

    I am not anti-Jewish nor am I anti-Israel. However I am against this war 100% and I believe that Israel is loosing it... the circle of Violence continues.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2006
  8. Aug 1, 2006 #7
    Wasnt deliberate? I think we can safely say it was deliberate. We however cannot say if there was an error in judgement by the soldiers that carried out the attack. An F16 used laser guided missiles to take out the UN post. The UN post had its UN flag flying HIGH, that post is well documented, the people inside the post radioed the Israeli's to let them know they were being attacked several times. It may still be being investigated, but dont you think we can use our own logic for once, and come to our own conclusions with the evidence that has been given to us? IMHO it is obviously deliberate, however we will not know the motive for the attack. The motivate could be justifiable, or it could not be. *THAT* is what needs investigating.
  9. Aug 1, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That was the entire point of the kidnapping, no? To negotiate prisoner exchange?
  10. Aug 1, 2006 #9
    When saying that losing a war means that the circle of violemce continues, indeed Isreal is loosing this "war". However, i fully support the actions of Isreal because when knowing that a terrorist organization is firing rockets close to your border, one has to act as a nation. So, if i had been the prime minister of Isreal, i would have done the exact same thing. Hezbollah needs to be eliminated because it is an organization (just like Al Quaida) that is full of people that are not thinking in a rational way. These guys are just inferior fundamentalists that will not reason with you if they don't want to.

    All they want is to cause pain and terror. They wanna eliminate Israel as a nation (just like Iran, who's "government" is totally supporting and financing Hezbollah) because of anti-semite and anti-holocaust reasons. They always said that Europe created Isreal as an excuse for the socalled holocaust. When "governments" are saying statements like this, i really don't believe that negotiations will yield anything good.

    Again, these are irrational fundamentalists that need to be blown away so that the world is a safer place.

    So, indeed, the circle of violence is not going to stop right away, but that is not relevant and it is not important. It is very logic that it will not end directly because such wars (with the aim of eliminating a terrorist government) takes time. The change of a lifestyle and mentality takes time and only time will prove US right. Just like in the case of Iraq.

  11. Aug 1, 2006 #10
    Err, first of all, about what did they want to negotiate ?

    Secondly, you really think such a proposition should be taken into account when this terrorist organization had just kidnapped Israeli soldiers ?

    Thirdly, just because they said it and Israel did not, does certainly not imply that Israel is "more guilty" or whatever. At least this is what i guess you wanna say right ? If not, what exactly is your point ?

    Finally, why would Isreal wanna negotiate if they just had been the victim of a crime ? One does not negotiate with terrorists and certainly not in public or as an entire nation. That would violate one of the very foundations of democracy, which Israel IS and Hezbollah is NOT.

  12. Aug 1, 2006 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hezbollah is engaging in two separate types of action - one that fundamentally targets civilians and one that fundamentally targets soldiers. The one that fundamentally targets civilians isn't all that reliable, but they are doing the best they can to kill as many civilians as they can.
  13. Aug 1, 2006 #12
    Prisoner exchange as Gokul rightly said

    yes I do as a matter of fact. Look at the IRA conflict as a case study. They are not identical conflicts by any means, but there are loads and loads of similarities. You cant "stamp" out terrorists, it doesnt work, the harder you attack them the more they recruit and the more they attack you. Its like one of the chinesse finger puzzles, the stronger you pull the more impossible it is to take off.

    No thats not my point, my point is that Israel was incorrect in its judgement to go to war. They should have negotiated, got there prisoners back and saved the anguish of all the Israeli's in danger now, and all the Lebonesse.
    people do negotiate with terrorists, this is a slogan, its not workable. Terrorist, freedom fighters, resistance movements, (Whatever label you want to put on them) have been effectively disarmed through negotiations, especially when they sense that MORE can be achieved through political channels and not through Violence.
  14. Aug 1, 2006 #13
    Russ that is news to me. Where did you get that info from?

    Whether it is true or not, the same could be perceived of the Israeli's, especially after the recent bombing runs.
  15. Aug 1, 2006 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Both of you are casting far too wide a net with what you are considering illegal actions. First nuclear weapons are not illegal and the US doesn't use napalm. We've had long and torturous discussions about those.

    Second, having a UN resolution about something doesn't mean that something is illegal. Resolutions are not laws.
  16. Aug 1, 2006 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Where do I get what? Every news article about this conflict discusses the two types of actions they are engaging in:

    1. Ground combat with Israeli soldiers in the border region.
    2. Rocket strikes against civilian population centers.
  17. Aug 1, 2006 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Are you saying that people should negotiate with terrorists for hostages?

    Do you remember the plane hijackings that used to be common in the 70s and 80s? Do you know why they are rare today? Do you know why kidnappings are so rare in the US today? And besides the practical reason, kidnapping for ransom is illegal and negotiation requires letting criminals get away with their crime.

    You do not negotiate for hostages with terrorists.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2006
  18. Aug 1, 2006 #17
    I thought you meant something else. I dont think it is as clean cut as this anyway. The rocket attacks are also towards Military installations not only towards civilians. Regardless, the ratio of Civilians killed to Soldiers in Israel is way way lower than that of Lebanon.
  19. Aug 1, 2006 #18
    yes because of the security in airports is *WAY* tighter now than in the 70's and 80's. Whats your point?
  20. Aug 1, 2006 #19
    Its not a law of physics you know. Its a matter of opinion. In ever situation you should look at all factors and decide what is the best course of action to resolve the situation. To take your corner like that and leave no room for thought is a dangerous game to play, especially in a situation where loss of life (mass loss of life) if bound to happen if you dont play your cards correctly.
  21. Aug 1, 2006 #20

    I'm not sure where your quoting it from, can't see it but I'm responding to the quote, but before Israel was a state the people living in Jewish settlements were responsible for their actions, afterwards the government where, either way your still responsible for your actions, what sort of odd logic is it to say it is irrelevant what our people did pre establishment of borders? Is it irrelevant to Italians that the Romans crucified christ? I think the Catholic church may say differently. Even if they aren't technically Romans any more.

    I agree with Antech, the Israelis have messed up, time will tell if we're right, of course I hope I'm wrong.

    As for the original wquestion I think the US position is biased, in as much as sanctions against Israel are impossible, but always possible against the other side, yes the US is partially responsible, as who's supplying Israel with it's military might, if your not in part somewhat responsible then I fail to see how.

    So are the French for giving Israel nukes, who are in turn responsible for the as yet usnsubstantiated claim that Iran are looking for nukes, i'ts all a web of politics, lies and machinations, that Machievella would have drooled over :smile:

    When a country has the power of veto, they aren't even worth the paper they are written on :smile:
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook