NationStates Jolt Archive

maybe they should stop state terrorism and remove their people from the palestinian area and you know not build a wall in it


First of all - there has never been a country called Palestine. It is merely an area. As such, one can make no claims of inherent sovereignty.
Second, if the Israeli forces left the 'occupied areas' - do you know who would logically assume control of them? Not the Palestinians, but the state of Jordan, which lost these areas in the war of 1967. You cannot logically 'return' the occupied areas to the Palestinians, for the simple reason that the territory in question belongs to Jordan.

who the fuck said anything about killing?

the US rounded up the japanese americans and germans and italians in america pretty effectively during world war 2, the germans rounded up plenty of jews and homosexuals and the like, they killed them laters of course, but they rounded them up, all israel has to do is round up a bunch of illegal settlements of their own countrymen and move their asses back to israel

killing is a last resort, get that through your head captain oblivious

Illegal, because they're actually located in Jordanian territory. Not Palestinian.

First of all - there has never been a country called Palestine. It is merely an area. As such, one can make no claims of inherent sovereignty.
Second, if the Israeli forces left the 'occupied areas' - do you know who would logically assume control of them? Not the Palestinians, but the state of Jordan, which lost these areas in the war of 1967. You cannot logically 'return' the occupied areas to the Palestinians, for the simple reason that the territory in question belongs to Jordan.
still irrelevant to the immediate point the israelis are there ilegally

Well the reason I care for the Palestinians is because they are not all terrorists if you realize, and they have not had as legit a government as I'd have hoped for until Abbas (but he resigned). I think the only way there can be any progress is if Israel and Palestine cooperate on hunting down terrorists - it may go smoother since I heard Arafat turned over control of the security forces to the PM Ahmed Queria

No offense, but are you not describing what Israel did to the Palestinians in order to get most of the land to begin with? Why is "impractical" to do so for illegal settlements when it was quite practical to do so to established Palestinian villages?

Wasn't it strictly speaking the British who did that? Or didn't the Arabic Palestinians start moving out until the outbreak of war in 1948? Just curious...

Wasn't one of the leaders of one of the terrorist organizations, I think Hamas, assasinated with a sniper rifle? I believe that when they can, the ISF tries minimizes casualties.

Come to think of it, using an air-based weapons platform is probably just easier than to infiltrate a Palestinian settlement with a sniper team...

you ignore the fact they are there illegally and it is palestinian land, not israeli

That is not entirely correct. The country that lost these territories to Israel in the 1967 war was Jordan.

That is not entirely correct. The country that lost these territories to Israel in the 1967 war was Jordan.
the important part that they are there illegally is still up for grabs

OK, you make the completely incorrect assumption here that all Palestinians are terrorist suicide bombers. Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians.

The Russian Revolution was one of the most violent in history; it was an all-out civil war. The Russians made Hamas look like, well... Ghandi.

Wrong. Hamas thinks this. The Israeli army does not only target terrorists. In the past five years, around 20% of Palestinians killed by the Israeli Army have been children. The homes of thousands of Palestinians have been destroyed also. Maybe you remember than in May of this year, an Israeli helicopter shot missiles at a crowd of Palestinian protestors, killing 10 civilians. The Israelis claimed that they saw a few men in the crowd holding handguns, as if this was a good reason to shoot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1007051,00.html

How can you not feel sympathy for the oppressed Palestinians?

...I recall some numbers from last year, stating that the number of Palestianian women and children under the age of 10 killed by the Israeli during this intifada equalled 8%. In comparison, 40% of Israeli deaths were women or children.
Now, unless some sources can support these claims, I find it difficult to determine who is right
And I don't buy the notion of IDF intentionally targetting civilians...Unless you can present solid evidence of this, of course.

Isn't the kid with the rock still a civillian?

That's an interesting question. From a military point of view, I believe he would momentarily be a valid target if he manages to injure a soldier with his rock. If he throws just one rock, then he is rendered civilian again, as he poses no immediate threat. However, if he picks up another rock upon having thrown the first one, he should be considered a valid target, as his willingness to inflict injury with the rock has been proved.
Still, I may be incorrect in stating this...
Do we have any military personnel present with knowledge on what constitutes a combattant?

Defined by what? What legality? Israel's neighbors have been trying for 60 years to wipe them off the face of the earth. If they have lost territory in the process, well, to the victor goes the spoils. Most of the nations of this world are defined by boundaries won through war.

This whole 'occupied areas' thing is actually also a demonstration of UN double standards. The UN has been busy telling Israel give up its occupation of the territories won in the 1967 war. How about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974? No one seems to care about those occupied territories but the cypriots. Well, maybe the UN will get around to addressing Turkey most politely on this matter, once the Israelis have abandoned their occupied territories.

How about when Israeli soldiers or tanks fire their weapons at any movement and night and over the years kill hundreds of children who were outside for various reasons.

The one that comes to mind was a young boy out to get some candy, a round from a tanks machine gun took his head off.

Another Israeli tank fired its main gun into a tent at a refugee camp.

Let's not forget Jenin, they wouldn't allowed international inspection teams there. Wonder why?

Concerning Jenin, the media played a part in somewhat distorting the impression that most Europeans received. According to multiple news reports and film clips from Jenin, it would seem that the entire city had been devastated. Satellite images, however, revealed that the area, in which buldings had clearly been demoslished or shot to pieces, was smaller than 1/20 of city's total size.

I didn't know this till I stumbled on an Indian news site, which had supposedly bought the images off a commercial Russian satellite.

Btw, why do people insist on calling these cities 'refugee camps'? They've been there for the past 50 years, and most have the layout (and to some extent the infrastructure) of cities, with lots of quite solid and quite stationary buildings in them. There isn't really anything temporary about them, which contradicts what the word 'camp' suggests.

This whole 'occupied areas' thing is actually also a demonstration of UN double standards. The UN has been busy telling Israel give up its occupation of the territories won in the 1967 war. How about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974? No one seems to care about those occupied territories but the cypriots. Well, maybe the UN will get around to addressing Turkey most politely on this matter, once the Israelis have abandoned their occupied territories.


Uh, actually there has been a UN pressence in Cyprus for decades now walking the line between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot segments of the Island. It's been about the only reason that the Island hadn't completely imploded. Indeed, if you read down to the bottom of the current report, work by the UN over the past couple of years seems to finally be leading to peaceful reunification.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unficyp/background.html

still irrelevant to the immediate point the israelis are there ilegally

So you would have them leave?...then the Jordanians could have their land back. And then what?

Uh, actually there has been a UN pressence in Cyprus for decades now walking the line between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot segments of the Island. It's been about the only reason that the Island hadn't completely imploded. Indeed, if you read down to the bottom of the current report, work by the UN over the past couple of years seems to finally be leading to peaceful reunification.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unficyp/background.html

Obviously, I am neither as insightful on the matter of Cyprus, or as skillfull in communicating effectively as I would like to be :). My point was, that a lot of people seem quite willing to discuss the occupied areas of Israel/Palestine/whatever, while surprisingly few even know of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. (I know, media coverage, or lack thereof, plays a part in this)
And while I admire the UN for its peace-keeping efforts, I cannot understand its soft stance towards Turkey on this matter. It just doesn't add up with the way it is treating Isreal, for what is supposedly the same offense.

It should probably be pointed out that a lot of those Palestinian kids killed by the Israeli Army were being used as human shields by Hamas.

So you would have them leave?...then the Jordanians could have their land back. And then what?
yes i would have them leave, then we deal with what happens after we get the israelis there illegally out

yes i would have them leave, then we deal with what happens after we get the israelis there illegally out

OK then... when the Arabs attack Israel again, and when they lose again, will you support Israel when it declares all the lands taken to be annexed?

That's an interesting question. From a military point of view, I believe he would momentarily be a valid target if he manages to injure a soldier with his rock. If he throws just one rock, then he is rendered civilian again, as he poses no immediate threat. However, if he picks up another rock upon having thrown the first one, he should be considered a valid target, as his willingness to inflict injury with the rock has been proved.
From that perspective wouldn't the settlers also be consider a military target (as they are an occupying force)?

Obviously, I am neither as insightful on the matter of Cyprus, or as skillfull in communicating effectively as I would like to be :). My point was, that a lot of people seem quite willing to discuss the occupied areas of Israel/Palestine/whatever, while surprisingly few even know of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. (I know, media coverage, or lack thereof, plays a part in this)
And while I admire the UN for its peace-keeping efforts, I cannot understand its soft stance towards Turkey on this matter. It just doesn't add up with the way it is treating Isreal, for what is supposedly the same offense.
Because the Turkish invaded (in thier eyes) to ensure the democratic process continued and the elected government was not over thrown by a Greek military dictator. The invasion was not a real issue it was the continued holding of the land that is the issue. And if the international comunity was not prepared to act once when some one tries to overthrow the elected Gov why should the Turks believe they will next time. Both sides here are at fault. It is not a question of the Turks invading without cause.

And while I admire the UN for its peace-keeping efforts, I cannot understand its soft stance towards Turkey on this matter. It just doesn't add up with the way it is treating Isreal, for what is supposedly the same offense.
Step back a bit further and look how texas and New Mexico were stolen. Time has passed and the situation accepted.

From that perspective wouldn't the settlers also be consider a military target (as they are an occupying force)?

I don't think the settlers have a habit of trying to stop tanks and the like from advancing. But I realise that you are probably asking as to why the Palestinians should not consider settlers valid military targets?

The settlers themselves are not the occupying force - the Israeli Defense Force is. You could argue that most Israeli men and women have served in the IDF, but that changes nothing, as long as they're out of uniform and unarmed.
To consider settlers valid targets in any way, they would have to represent a present and credible danger to your life. If they simply mind their own business in their settlements, I for one cannot see how this criteria is fulfilled.

I don't think the settlers have a habit of trying to stop tanks and the like from advancing. But I realise that you are probably asking as to why the Palestinians should not consider settlers valid military targets?

The settlers themselves are not the occupying force - the Israeli Defense Force is. You could argue that most Israeli men and women have served in the IDF, but that changes nothing, as long as they're out of uniform and unarmed.
To consider settlers valid targets in any way, they would have to represent a present and credible danger to your life. If they simply mind their own business in their settlements, I for one cannot see how this criteria is fulfilled.Couple of points. Firstly, surely settlements built on your land, which refuse to adhere to your laws, and are vehemently anti your people, are an occupation by any reasonable defination?

Secondly, as we know most settlers are armed, considering that the Palestinian goverment has not given them permission does that not mean at the very least they are criminals. How do police forces around the world normally treat criminals with guns if they refuse to give those up?

Couple of points. Firstly, surely settlements built on your land, which refuse to adhere to your laws, and are vehemently anti your people, are an occupation by any reasonable defination?

Secondly, as we know most settlers are armed, considering that the Palestinian goverment has not given them permission does that not mean at the very least they are criminals. How do police forces around the world normally treat criminals with guns if they refuse to give those up?

No Palestine nation has been created yet. The land in question is still under the control of the state of Israel. The Palestinian administration closely resembles that of a 'home rule government'. While it allows them some degree of self-government, they still have to obey Israeli law as far as I know.
(Legal experts, Israeli citiziens, or anyone with first hand knowledge on this, feel free to enlighten us.)

The second part of your argument is rendered invalid, if I am proven right in my interpretation of the first part. But still, I'd like to question your mentioning of police forces. The attack on the settlements are, to my knowledge, not carried out by uniformed Palestinian police. Would you like to comment on this?

No Palestine nation has been created yet. The land in question is still under the control of the state of Israel. The Palestinian administration closely resembles that of a 'home rule government'. While it allows them some degree of self-government, they still have to obey Israeli law as far as I know.
(Legal experts, Israeli citiziens, or anyone with first hand knowledge on this, feel free to enlighten us.)In that case how can the Palestinian goverment be expected to crack down on terrorists if they have no legal authority to do so? And why can't the Palestinians vote in Israeli elections?

The second part of your argument is rendered invalid, if I am proven right in my interpretation of the first part. But still, I'd like to question your mentioning of police forces. The attack on the settlements are, to my knowledge, not carried out by uniformed Palestinian police. Would you like to comment on this?That's a fair point. But we both know that if the Palestinian police were to try and enforce the rule of law against the settlers it would turn into a shootout with the IDF. Hence I'd see attacks against settlements as vigilantism as opposed to terrorism.

I don't think the settlers have a habit of trying to stop tanks and the like from advancing. But I realise that you are probably asking as to why the Palestinians should not consider settlers valid military targets?

The settlers themselves are not the occupying force - the Israeli Defense Force is. You could argue that most Israeli men and women have served in the IDF, but that changes nothing, as long as they're out of uniform and unarmed.
To consider settlers valid targets in any way, they would have to represent a present and credible danger to your life. If they simply mind their own business in their settlements, I for one cannot see how this criteria is fulfilled.

This is a fair point, except that many of the ideological settlements (as opposed to secular ones) have demonstrated a long-standing hostility towards their Arab neighbors. Many of the settlers ARE armed, particularly when leaving their settlements, and attacks on Palestinian communities, people, and property are rarely punished. From where I'm sitting, there seems to be a strong parallel between the settlers and the Palestinians.

That is, not all the settlers attack Palestinians. Well, not all the Palestinians belong to militias/terror groups.

Not all the settlers are armed. Not all the Palestinians are armed (in this case, we'll expand the definition of "armed" to include things like rocks, Molotov Cocktails, etc).

Settler "noncombattants" (women, children) are often caught in the crossfire. Same for the Palestinians.

The one difference, from my perspective, is that it seems that the level of violence or number of violent attacks between settlers and Palestinians are significantly different. However, this may only be a result of media coverage, etc.

You can check out B'Tselem for documented incidences of settler violence: http://www.btselem.org/search.asp?Lang=en-us&txtSearch=settler

So basically, yeah, I'm not saying violence against the settlers is JUSTIFIED, but there's definitely a strong parallel between the settlers being treated as one monolithic "hostile" community by the Palestinians and the Palestinians being treated similarly by Israelis, both IDF and settlers.