'It Is Futile To Send '150,000 U.S. Soldiers' To Defend An Unreformed Iraq

I didn't fabricate anything, you said we declared war on the Arabs from at least 1904 - where is it?, I don't see anything in that text remotely close to "war".

 

Begging your pardon sir but why 650,000 don't get the right for self determination but Arabs do ? before you start with the "its their country" nonsense I think you need to understand it wasn't anyone's country. yes ppl lived there and they owned where they lived but no Arab had claim on a sandy hill miles away from his home, that was barren land.

Sticking to the law, the Jews had a right for self determination in Palestine (Former Judea), they were granted immigration rights and the Arabs had no right to oppose it, the 1.3 million Arabs will have their own state, that's the principle of self determination - not domination.

 

They think they are so smart in the end they all come to same dead-end "It was theirs because it was theirs....." lol. I wonder if that's honest stupidity or planned propaganda denial.

 

Planned <insanity> in rewriting history of the region in favor of <terrorists> who in turn wants to destroy what the Jews built.
Already 77% of the Mandate was surreptitiously given away to an upstart from the <Hedjaz> by the name of Abdullah...
The remaining 23% is on their agenda to be decimated with their inhabitants... I would have used a passage from the Bible that states <if there is an enemy coming to kill you, be prompt and early to destroy it>!!!

 

IF SOMEONE COMES TO KILL YOU, RISE UP AND KILL HIM FIRST


Questions to ponder:

I. Is there a Jewish concept of self-defense?
II. How might classic Jewish principles apply to the behavior of modern nations?
III. Are the State of Israel's actions consistent with Jewish tradition?

Several days before the horror of September 11, 2001, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres spoke to Conservative rabbis in an international conference call. Responding to a concern expressed about Israel's policy of preemptive targeted killings of suspected terrorist leaders and the inevitable collateral damage, Mr. Peres defended the practice, citing an oft-quoted rabbinic legal dictum, "Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo," "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)."
The uproar last July by Israel-bashers and, more credibly, by the Israeli Jewish public after the Israeli army bombed a Gaza apartment building, inadvertently killing fourteen civilians, including nine children, along with arch-terrorist Salah Shehada, again focused attention on the issue of collateral damage in the implementation of "Im ba l'hargekha."

It is important to understand the text and context of the Jewish "im ba l'hargekha" directive cited by Mr. Peres and to ask (more than answer) what the parameters of its implementation should be today. The principle originates in the Talmudic discussion of a profoundly realistic and relevant passage, Exodus 22, which refers to a case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery. As the text states,

[If] the thief is seized while tunneling, and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt [for the homeowner]. If the sun has risen on him [and he is beaten to death], there is bloodguilt [for the homeowner].
"Tunneling" is understood by most scholars to imply an event that occurred at night, under the cover of darkness, in contrast to one that occurred during daylight hours, described by the phrase, "If the sun has risen on him." If one defends oneself against a nighttime intruder by killing him, no guilt is incurred by the person who committed the killing. The reasoning behind this determination is based on the rabbinic interpretation of the intruder's presumed intent. By entering a home at night, when he is likely to encounter the home's occupants, the burglar indicates a willingness to use force against them, and is, therefore, presumed to have homicidal intent. Since he has, moreover, created an imminent threat to the residents, the burglar exposes himself to the risk of being killed by a member of the household, who is acting in legally sanctioned self-defense. The household member, therefore, will not be held liable and subject to punishment for killing the intruder.

In contradistinction, a would-be thief who enters during the day signals his reluctance to use force against a home's occupants. A homeowner in this case is held accountable if he kills the intruder.

The Talmudic discussion of this Exodus passage introduces the classic Jewish principle of self-defense, "Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo," "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included.

The implementation of this principle in a modern context, in the geopolitical reality of nation-states, creates a challenge for contemporary leaders. Is it reasonable to base a country's foreign or defense policy on an ancient legal code designed to apply to criminal acts committed by individuals against other individuals? In reality, there are no specific Jewish laws governing the response of states to acts of terrorism by individuals. There are biblical guidelines for wars conducted by Jews which distinguish between battles to defend the Land of Israel and other "voluntary" battles, but these laws challenge modern sensibilities because they include specific commands to eradicate the non-Israelite inhabitants of the Land of Israel. Fundamentalists have misused these isolated biblical texts for their malevolent agendas.

Nonetheless, it is appropriate to apply the foundational ethics of the Bible and Talmud regarding the sanctity of human life to the actions of modern nations. Among those ethics is preservation of one's own life, and self-defense is a necessary corollary of that, making it an essential component of any policy for a nation dedicated to the protection of the lives of its citizenry. The state can be said to assume the role of "homeowner" writ large.

That said, how imminent does a threat have to be to justify lethal force in preemptive self-defense? From the perspective of a modern state, if one waits until the terrorists "tunnel" into our homes in the middle of the night - that is, invade territory through stealth means, as they have - it is obviously too late to conduct effective measures of self-defense. In fact, citizens justifiably hold their governments accountable if everything within their power isn't done (including invoking the use of lethal force) to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. This concept was dramatically articulated at a recent meeting of the American Jewish Committee's Board of Governors. In a debate over the appropriate balance between civil liberties and national security, a participant forcefully advocated prioritizing national security over civil liberties, declaring, "The first civil liberty is the right to live." The most sacred task of any government is to protect its citizens from physical harm.

But that is the relatively easy question. Nearly all embrace the concept of self-defense. Today's unsettling dilemma is the issue of unintended innocent victims and collateral damage in the implementation of preemptive self-defense. What if anything is an acceptable level of collateral damage in the pursuit of self-defense? Can one justify the deaths of innocent bystanders in an action designed to prevent terrorist attacks? This is a values conflict without a simple answer, but the criteria of intent, as framed by the Talmudic argument, offers a cogent guidepost for understanding and reflection.

With regard to intent, there is a moral chasm that exists between the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers and the inevitable accidental deaths of civilians during preemptive strikes against proven terrorists. This distinction has been casually and conveniently overlooked by many pundits, including Caleb Carr, a military historian and author of an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times. In his polemic, Carr unfairly equated the Gaza bombing in which Shehada was killed with the World War II German bombardment of British civilian areas, the Allied bombing campaign of German cities, the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Palestinian suicide bombings. As one letter to the editor correctly pointed out,

There is a world of difference between the civilian deaths that occurred during the Israeli assassination of the Hamas military leader and the civilian deaths that occur when buses or pizza parlors or discos or restaurants are blown up.
Ultimately, the acceptability of unintended innocent victims' deaths in the pursuit of a state's legitimate goal - defense of its citizenry against homicidal insurgents - remains a difficult judgment. The Jewish and democratic values inherent in Israeli society have succeeded in forcing public debate on this defining topic, even as the horrific pressure of casualties resulting from the suicide bombing attacks mounts. To their eternal credit, Israelis understand that the way a country balances legitimate defense needs against concern for the lives of its enemy's civilian population can characterize the soul of a nation. Notwithstanding the hypocritical criticism of many, Israel's soul is indeed reflected in its sincere efforts to adhere to a Jewish and democratic ethical code that values human life and to retain its national integrity in unprecedentedly challenging circumstances.

For further study:
Irving Greenberg, "The Ethics of Jewish Power Today."
Tony Lang, "Civilians and War: Dilemmas in Law and Morality."
Terry Nardin, ed., The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996, 199.

DATE CREATED: 11/12/2012 1:16:22 PM
- See more at: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/...2195&ct=12482997&notoc=1#sthash.ljI5eIkp.dpuf

 

When are we going to leave this country be and let it fight its own battles?

 

Self-determination in Palestine would have offered every Jew and Arab a vote in 1948 with the democratic chips falling where they may; obviously, Jews were frightened by voting and resorted to ethnic cleansing in order to establish "the only democracy in the Middle East" built by a "people without a land" on top of a "land without a people."

Do such a people ever run out of lies?

 

This is the Land of the Jews long before the birth of Islam 1400 Years ago.
And this is why (the Mandate describes) the connection of the Jewish people with that land and the <reconstitution> of the original homeland of the Jews...

Swallow the sour pill for Israel is here to stay <forever and ever> get over it...

 

Ancient mythology aside, Jews have no more right to the land between the River and the sea today than native Americans have to Manhattan. In 1948 650,000 Jews inflicted their state by force of arms on 1.3 million Muslims. Payback is coming.

 

Three D's of antisemitism;

Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

 

Pure and undiluted <baloney>!!!

You have to learn basic history otherwise your post will not make any sense.

Ask yourself the following question: -

What is a motherland and how one would reconcile a people with a country they call their own?

Apart from from the common descent, lineage, heritage, culture, ancestry, language ethnic background, society, folklore, tradition, custom and religion?

Have you asked yourself why a people occupy a certain part of the globe and call it home??

Why do the Greeks live in Greece, the Turks in Turkey, the Mongols in Mongolia, the Arabs in Arabia, the Chinese in China? Etc...

And why so they call that their homeland and Motherland?

What kind of proof do they give us for their respective attachment to their domain?

One thing comes to mind and only one<archaeology>!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every artifact, (ancient product of human workmanship), every vestige, trace, mark will shed light on this particular body of people... their inheritance, their ownership of that land from time immemorial...

The difference is as far as the American Native Indians right to their Land was diluted by the fact that they were decimated and today, they are a minute <minority>...
The Jews on the other hand, are the majority on their land, so once again adjust to the situation and accept it.
Now if you still think that according to you <payback is coming>...
I can only respond with certitude that in wars... there is no substitute to <victory> ... attacking the Jews is a risk that I will not take as an Arab today!

 

WHAT IS BDS?
http://www.bdsmovement.net/

 

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
"That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save them from such dismay. Apart from those who have been virtually 'blind' since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to 'Palestine' becoming a country with a Jewish majority."
When did the Greeks, Turks, or Arabs abandon their homelands for a period of 2000 years? Maybe the Jews just aren't entitled to Palestine?

 

My point exactly. Palestinians declared war on her, made her destruction their official policy to this day, and Israel responded like every other nation at war has always done - by legally occupying territory to deny those resources to those who would use them to destroy her and enact an embargo to deny material with which to do same and, among the other nations who have throughout history done the same the BDS movement finds this wrong when Israel does it.

Why?

Three D's of antisemitism;

Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

Antisemitism pure and simple.

 

That is according to the Jew God who send the Jews to commit genocide against the kind people of Canaan.
But that piece of crap religion that teaches Jews to terrorize, kill and ethnic cleanse doesn't give a Jew any rights to any land.

 

I dont think the US paid nearly enough to the Iraqi's be sending their country in total anarchy that comes the slaughter campaigns.
The US got blood on it's hands their because of that. A heck of a lot of blood.

 

Actually they were there as recorded in non religious historical texts as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea

- - - Updated - - -

Killed almost twenty thousand Iraqis, some of them civilians when they conducted regime change to get Iraq to comply with their broken ceasefire conditions.

 

When you invade a country, you as the occupier are responsible for the safety of the citizens. That makes the US responsible for the massacres. If you don't like it, than don't invade.

 

What legal authority did Israel possess that allowed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967? Jews hid behind British bayonets for a generation while they filled Palestine with European immigrants waiting until their numbers were large enough to create their "democratic" state by the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 indigenous Palestinians. 1967 simply gave the Jews a chance to steal the remaining 20% of historical Palestine. BDS will change that unfortunate history.

 

Where did you find your "almost twenty thousand Iraqis" figure?

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time.

"A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

"Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

""Total deaths from coalition forces:
15,128 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition. ""

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/

 

No, they are responsible to ensure the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention are followed. They make no mention of the occupier being culpable for everything that goes wrong in the territory.

 

UN Charter article 51.

""Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.""

 

Your link:
"Total deaths with combatants, combining IBC and official records:
Combining IBC civilian data with official Iraqi and US combatant death figures and data from the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks, we estimate the documented death toll across all categories since March 2003 to be 162,000, of whom 79% were civilians."

 

The Rest of UN Charter article 51
"Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."