NationStates Jolt Archive

For anyone interested:

My Model UN class is debating a resolution on the Israeli-Palestine
dispute(s). Before I make a fool of myself by arguing a point that I know next to nothing about, I would appreciate any help on the matter. Please, I would appreciate as unbiased information as possible; however, I realize that these forums do tend to turn into flame threads, but I would like to avoid this as long as possible. Also, any reputable sources that I can research would also be much appreciated.

Thank you.

For anyone interested:

My Model UN class is debating a resolution on the Israeli-Palestine
dispute(s). Before I make a fool of myself by arguing a point that I know next to nothing about, I would appreciate any help on the matter. Please, I would appreciate as unbiased information as possible; however, I realize that these forums do tend to turn into flame threads, but I would like to avoid this as long as possible. Also, any reputable sources that I can research would also be much appreciated.

Thank you.

The Intifida started in 2000. The Palistinians are bombing israeli busses, open markets, and everything else bombable, while the Israelis are killing Hamas Leaders, hitting Cars with Hellfire missiles, driving through Palistinian towns and killing (mostly) terrorists, and hitting the homes of Terrorist leaders where they live with their families. Israel withdraws from several key settlements to try and make peace.

About sums it up.

How much do you need to know? You might start with Wikipedia, and go from there. An unbiased source will be rare, but hopefully you can get enough biased sources together to glean enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

Okay. Does anybody know anything specific about it (documents, treaties, dates)--basically stuff that will reinforce debate. Sorry, should have specified before, but thanks ARF-COM and IBTL.

How much do you need to know? You might start with Wikipedia, and go from there. An unbiased source will be rare, but hopefully you can get enough biased sources together to glean enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

Wikipedia...forgot about that...

The Intifida started in 2000. The Palistinians are bombing israeli busses, open markets, and everything else bombable, while the Israelis are killing Hamas Leaders, hitting Cars with Hellfire missiles, driving through Palistinian towns and killing (mostly) terrorists, and hitting the homes of Terrorist leaders where they live with their families. Israel withdraws from several key settlements to try and make peace.

About sums it up.


The Intifada did not begin in 2000.

A Jew making up facts unbelivable. ;)

The Intifada did not begin in 2000.
The 2nd Intifada certainly did begin in 2000. The first began in 1987 and ended with the Oslo peace accords in 1993.

This is what triggered the latest circle of violence in 2000

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/

The Intifida started in 2000. The Palistinians are bombing israeli busses, open markets, and everything else bombable, while the Israelis are killing Hamas Leaders, hitting Cars with Hellfire missiles, driving through Palistinian towns and killing (mostly) terrorists, and hitting the homes of Terrorist leaders where they live with their families. Israel withdraws from several key settlements to try and make peace.

About sums it up.

The current most recent intifada, which arguably ended in February 2005, did begin in September 2000. I was there at the time, so it's pretty clear in my mind.

Even on the most pro-Israeli estimates, since September 2000 Israel is not killing (mostly) terrorists, but (mostly) innocent bystanders at a ratio of about two bystanders to one alleged terrorist. Most "terrorist" homes demolished have been those of suicide bombers, not terrorist leaders. Since most palestinian dwellings are multi-home dwellings, each demolition dehouses a number of families who have no provable connection to the terrorist concerned. However, most homes demolished have in fact been demolished because Israeli asserts that they have been illegally constructed, albeit in land over which Israel has no legal claim.

For Israel is driving through Palestinian towns, add, in tanks and armoured personnel carriers, destroying buildings, roads and built infrastructure in their path.

Israel's announced intentions in withdrawing from 26 untenable settlements in Gaza and four minor settlements in the West Bank have not included the expression "to make peace". To the extent that the intentions have been susceptible to summary, they have avowedly been to form a defensible border, end an untenable experiment and allow consolidation of holdings in the West Bank. And in the exact words of close PM Sharon associate Dov Weissglass, "put the peace process in formaldehyde."

The current most recent intifada, which arguably ended in February 2005, did begin in September 2000. I was there at the time, so it's pretty clear in my mind.

Even on the most pro-Israeli estimates, since September 2000 Israel is not killing (mostly) terrorists, but (mostly) innocent bystanders at a ratio of about two bystanders to one alleged terrorist. Most "terrorist" homes demolished have been those of suicide bombers, not terrorist leaders. Since most palestinian dwellings are multi-home dwellings, each demolition dehouses a number of families who have no provable connection to the terrorist concerned. However, most homes demolished have in fact been demolished because Israeli asserts that they have been illegally constructed, albeit in land over which Israel has no legal claim.

For Israel is driving through Palestinian towns, add, in tanks and armoured personnel carriers, destroying buildings, roads and built infrastructure in their path.

Israel's announced intentions in withdrawing from 26 untenable settlements in Gaza and four minor settlements in the West Bank have not included the expression "to make peace". To the extent that the intentions have been susceptible to summary, they have avowedly been to form a defensible border, end an untenable experiment and allow consolidation of holdings in the West Bank. And in the exact words of close PM Sharon associate Dov Weissglass, "put the peace process in formaldehyde."

What an unbiased source. You could at least have worded it to make it slightly more neutral.

Truth will set you free, but it often unplesant.

If you would look at the Palestinian school systems... in the textbooks they teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis. Children are born into hating something that they know nothing about. They are taught that it is honorable to die as long as they are killing as many Israeli's in the process of dieing. Israeli's are protecting themselves from terrorists and suicide bombers (i dont notice and Israeli's strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Palestinian children on school busses). Israeli's must be very strict on rules and very tight on security, and very quick to react to possible threats. They are trying to live peacefully, and have tried countless times for peace that have failed. Now they pull out of Gaza... many israelis are angry because they are forced to leave their homes, but atleast there is a chance for peace... but i doubt it will happen. I give it a few more weeks until the Palestinians start bombing and attacking again, and ask for more land in exchange for "peace". They will not stop until they get all of Israel, and that is what they want (all of israel, and the destruction of the Jewish people)

look @ this (http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=22) its the truth, and it makes a lot of sense (and its sarcastic)

This is what triggered the latest circle of violence in 2000

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/
A single event like that cannot really trigger such a huge and well-organized wave of violence. The violence was pre-planned and prepared long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

Herpesia, to your question. I'll try to list a number of relevant documents, events and sources, just make a Google search on them. Not giving you any speific sources on purpose, make your own search, preferably from encyclopedic sources. Be careful with the Wikipedia, it is often unreliable on political subjects.

Relevant documents:

Balfour declaration (1917)

Weizmann-Feisal accord (1919) I suggest you make a research on the emir Feisal's role, its an interesting subject that is all too often overlooked

League of the Nations San Remo conference resolution (1922)

UN partition plan (1947)

UN General Assembly resolution 181

UN Security Council resolution 242

Statement by the Arab League States Following the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948)

Rhodus Armistice talks

Khartoum conference resolution (1967)

UN Resolution 3379 (1975, the infamous "Zionism equals racism" resolution. You may want to examine the role of the Soviet Union and of the Nazi war criminal and UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, in pushing that resolution through. Also keep in mind that it was revoked in 1991 by the Resolution 4686).

PLO Charter

The Egypt-Israel peace accord

Hamas Charter

The Madrid conference

The Oslo Accord

The Camp David conference

Relevant events and personalities:

Damascus blood libel of 1840

The Dreifus trial

The Beilis trial

Kishinev pogroms

(These events provide you with the background that explains the creation of the Zionist movement as a response to the rise of nationalim worldwide, and the consequent rise of anti-Semitism and racial theories).

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (This is a VERY important and also often forgotten piece of the puzzle. This man has largely shaped the Palestinian national movement and the general Arab attitude towards Israel).

Arab riots of 1929 and the destruction of the Jewish communities of Hebron and Kfar Darom.

Pro-Nazi Arab uprising in Palestine and Iraq in 1936

World war II and the Holocaust

Waffen SS divisions Handschar and Skanderberg, other Muslim and Arab units such as the Arabische Freiheitkorps. (The remains of these units were parachuted to Palestine for saboteur missions shortly before the end of the war, and later formed the mainstay of the Arab Liberation Army, the Palestinian armed force that attacked Israel together with the Arab armies in 1948. The ALA commander was also an Arab Nazi officer- oberst (colonel) Fauzi Al-Kaukaji).

1948 Independence war

1956 Sinai war

1967 Six Day war

1970 Black September events in Jordan

1973 Yom Kippur (Judgement Day) war

1975 Lebanon Civil war (Yes, it is relevant, check out the role of the Palestinian groups such as the PFLP and Sai'qa)

The Munich Olympic games massacre

The Maalot school massacre

The Entebbe plane hijacking and consequent Israeli raid

1982 Lebanon war ("Operation Peace to Galilee")

First Indifada

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa intifada)

many israelis are angry because they are forced to leave their homes,


Now maybe Israelis will see what its like when someone takes your home.
Guess what, Israel was not here 100 years ago.
Then all of a sudden England and the U.S. felt sorry for the Jews because of the holocost and gave them Israel to settle in. They took land away from the people that were living there to do so. There are also documented cases where Zionists wiped out villages of locals to settle there.

So, it is of no surprise that the locals would teach this hatred.

But I have also seen Zionist schools teach that Arabs are animals, and they should be treated as such. So it is not just one sided here.

As far as a solution, I dont' think there is one... both sides want the same piece of land....

What an unbiased source. You could at least have worded it to make it slightly more neutral.

I worded it to be as neutral as the post to which it was a response

Now maybe Israelis will see what its like when someone takes your home.
Guess what, Israel was not here 100 years ago.
Then all of a sudden England and the U.S. felt sorry for the Jews because of the holocost and gave them Israel to settle in. They took land away from the people that were living there to do so. There are also documented cases where Zionists wiped out villages of locals to settle there.

So, it is of no surprise that the locals would teach this hatred.

But I have also seen Zionist schools teach that Arabs are animals, and they should be treated as such. So it is not just one sided here.

As far as a solution, I dont' think there is one... both sides want the same piece of land....

I'm pro Israel, Pro-Palestine but originally there was a two state solution, and Jewish lands were bought from Palestinian farmers. It was only after a series of war that Israelis took the West Bank and the Gaza strip (and East Jerusalem).
By the way, there were no Zionist massacres. Most Jews had lost their families in the holocaust and Nazi invasion of the USSR. My gramps fought in the War of Independance. THe last thing the Zionists wanted was more bloodshed.

The current most recent intifada, which arguably ended in February 2005, did begin in September 2000. I was there at the time, so it's pretty clear in my mind.

Even on the most pro-Israeli estimates, since September 2000 Israel is not killing (mostly) terrorists, but (mostly) innocent bystanders at a ratio of about two bystanders to one alleged terrorist.
Absolutely false. The only source of statistics that differentiates between combatant and non-combatant Palestinian casualties, rather than lumping them together, is http://www.ict.org.il/
(go to "databases", then "Arab-Israeli conflict")


Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 20 April 2004

Palestinians:

Total: 2770
Non-Combatants killed by Opposite Side: 972

Combatants killed by Opposite Side 1310

Israelis:

Total: 920

Non-Combatants killed by Opposite Side: 715

Combatants killed by Opposite Side: 186


Granted, these statistics are about a year old- but are you going to claim that the ratio has changed 180 degrees over one year?

This is a pretty accurate history of how Israel was created... murder, assasicnation, bombing...sounds like someting Palentinians woudl do.. but it was actualy Zionist that did this to Britain and US interests


http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Guess what, Israel was not here 100 years ago.
But it was 2000 years ago.

And "Palestine" was never there. Not 100 years ago, not 500, not 2500. The Arabs don't even have their own word for "Palestine" except for the one borrowed from English, which entered the Arabic language during World war I.


But I have also seen Zionist schools teach that Arabs are animals, and they should be treated as such.
Have you? Where? Do tell. Better yet, show us. Because I've seen Israeli schoolbooks plenty (I live here, after all), and I've seen no such thing.

This is a pretty accurate history of how Israel was created... murder, assasicnation, bombing...sounds like someting Palentinians woudl do.. but it was actualy Zionist that did this to Britain and US interests


http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Sorry, a few Jewish extremists killed a Briton but there was no bombing or murder.

A single event like that cannot really trigger such a huge and well-organized wave of violence. The violence was pre-planned and prepared long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

Herpesia, to your question. I'll try to list a number of relevant documents, events and sources, just make a Google search on them. Not giving you any speific sources on purpose, make your own search, preferably from encyclopedic sources. Be careful with the Wikipedia, it is often unreliable on political subjects.

Relevant documents:

Balfour declaration (1917)

Weizmann-Feisal accord (1919) I suggest you make a research on the emir Feisal's role, its an interesting subject that is all too often overlooked

League of the Nations San Remo conference resolution (1922)

UN partition plan (1947)

UN General Assembly resolution 181

UN Security Council resolution 242

Statement by the Arab League States Following the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948)

Rhodus Armistice talks

Khartoum conference resolution (1967)

UN Resolution 3379 (1975, the infamous "Zionism equals racism" resolution. You may want to examine the role of the Soviet Union and of the Nazi war criminal and UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, in pushing that resolution through. Also keep in mind that it was revoked in 1991 by the Resolution 4686).

PLO Charter

The Egypt-Israel peace accord

Hamas Charter

The Madrid conference

The Oslo Accord

The Camp David conference

Relevant events and personalities:

Damascus blood libel of 1840

The Dreifus trial

The Beilis trial

Kishinev pogroms

(These events provide you with the background that explains the creation of the Zionist movement as a response to the rise of nationalim worldwide, and the consequent rise of anti-Semitism and racial theories).

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (This is a VERY important and also often forgotten piece of the puzzle. This man has largely shaped the Palestinian national movement and the general Arab attitude towards Israel).

Arab riots of 1929 and the destruction of the Jewish communities of Hebron and Kfar Darom.

Pro-Nazi Arab uprising in Palestine and Iraq in 1936

World war II and the Holocaust

Waffen SS divisions Handschar and Skanderberg, other Muslim and Arab units such as the Arabische Freiheitkorps. (The remains of these units were parachuted to Palestine for saboteur missions shortly before the end of the war, and later formed the mainstay of the Arab Liberation Army, the Palestinian armed force that attacked Israel together with the Arab armies in 1948. The ALA commander was also an Arab Nazi officer- oberst (colonel) Fauzi Al-Kaukaji).

1948 Independence war

1956 Sinai war

1967 Six Day war

1970 Black September events in Jordan

1973 Yom Kippur (Judgement Day) war

1975 Lebanon Civil war (Yes, it is relevant, check out the role of the Palestinian groups such as the PFLP and Sai'qa)

The Munich Olympic games massacre

The Maalot school massacre

The Entebbe plane hijacking and consequent Israeli raid

1982 Lebanon war ("Operation Peace to Galilee")

First Indifada

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa intifada)

Yes!!! Thank you, this is what I was looking for.

Yes!!! Thank you, this is what I was looking for.
Glad to be of service :)

Hey kids, take it from the Israeli. I've seen his posts before, and Holy Womble is by far the most unbiased and well-versed person to voice their opinion on the subject. Hell, even I'd forgotten about the Damascus blood-libel, something I'd only learned about a few months ago.

For clarification on the accusations of Israeli terrorism during the '40s, they targetted military outposts, never civilians. The Palestinians today, by contrast, target both.

If you would look at the Palestinian school systems... in the textbooks they teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis. Children are born into hating something that they know nothing about. They are taught that it is honorable to die as long as they are killing as many Israeli's in the process of dieing. Israeli's are protecting themselves from terrorists and suicide bombers (i dont notice and Israeli's strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Palestinian children on school busses). Israeli's must be very strict on rules and very tight on security, and very quick to react to possible threats. They are trying to live peacefully, and have tried countless times for peace that have failed. Now they pull out of Gaza... many israelis are angry because they are forced to leave their homes, but atleast there is a chance for peace... but i doubt it will happen. I give it a few more weeks until the Palestinians start bombing and attacking again, and ask for more land in exchange for "peace". They will not stop until they get all of Israel, and that is what they want (all of israel, and the destruction of the Jewish people)

look @ this (http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=22) its the truth, and it makes a lot of sense (and its sarcastic)


The comments about the school textbooks are true to the extent that they apply to the text books being used throughout the period of Israeli occupation prior to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, when Israel had complete control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and appeared to have no difficulty with the use of standard Jordanian (West Bank) and Egyptian (Gaza) school curricula being usedd for basic education. In response to those very concerns, the newly founded PA replaced all such texts with much improved ones, a move which has been largely overlooked by those who find the outmoded texts more useful for pointscoring.

As regards the comments about violence, I grew up in a different terrorist challenge and hold no brief for terrorism. I still find it slightly difficult to distinguish between the morality of detonating a charge of high explosive in the middle of a populated area when it's strapped to you and detonating it when you're at thirty thousand feet in an invulnerable fighterbomber. Approximately three times as many palestinian children are dead as Israeli children at date of writing, and unlike a number of other insurgencies and terrorist crises, the Palestinian death toll is almost exclusively due to the actions of the hostile government rather than to those of terrorists.

Sorry, a few Jewish extremists killed a Briton but there was no bombing or murder.

Perhaps you could explain the destruction of the King David hotel in Jerusalem and the deaths of some 70 people? Because up to now, I had been convinced that that was due to a bomb planted by Israeli terrorists. I'm just choosing the most egregious example for convenience.

Perhaps you could explain the destruction of the King David hotel in Jerusalem and the deaths of some 70 people? Because up to now, I had been convinced that that was due to a bomb planted by Israeli terrorists. I'm just choosing the most egregious example for convenience.
The King David hotel was a military target. The hotel was the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (colonial police). Moreover, multiple measures were taken to minimize casualties. A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of hotel, to the French consulate and to a number of major newspapers, demanding that the hotel be evacuated. The Irgun's plan, basically, was to blow up an empty building.

For clarification on the accusations of Israeli terrorism during the '40s, they targetted military outposts, never civilians. The Palestinians today, by contrast, target both.

Not strictly true, except to the extent that it relates to attacks against the then occupying power, the British Mandate (most of whose legal measures against Israeli terrorism are being used today against Palestinian terrorists - the policy of house demolition began in the Mandate. Even then it is only true if one takes a very wide view of what constitutes a military outpost; the definition seems a little stretched when it has to cover the demolition of a city centre hotel and the deaths of 70 (largely Jewish) civilian office workers. Attacks on Arab civilians are well documented and increasingly a subject of discussion in Israel itself, particularly such incidents as Deir Yassin during the War of Independence. Following Independence Israel continued to have a policy of attacking civilian targets as reprisal for terrorist incidents.

I should make it clear that I am making these points simply to balance the constant claims that Israel is doing, and has done, nothing wrong. It has done plenty which is wrong. None of it justifies any of the actions which have been taken against Israel by its enemies, but neither can it be overlooked in an argument which is constantly being presented as a battle between unalloyed good and unalloyed evil. It is a conflict. Unconscionable things are being done. They are not solving the problem, but if anything making it worse.

What an unbiased source. You could at least have worded it to make it slightly more neutral.
i think hes just trying to say the truth

the demolition of a city centre hotel and the deaths of 70 (largely Jewish) civilian office workers.
False again. About a "city centre hotel"- see my above post. About the casualties- you're completely off the mark. 91 people were killed, 45 wounded. Of the dead, 28 were British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 listed as "other". Whether or not the majority of them were civilians is disputed.

100,000 palistinian died since the begining of the intifada, and the intifada started because ariel sharon tried entering the third most holiest place for muslims with 3000 soldiers...
israel is the bad guy here
it obvious, in about 60 years they killed 100 of thousands of childrens, women and elders...
and all were palistineans

how can they be terrorrists, if they are trying to protect there occupied land

The King David hotel was a military target. The hotel was the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (colonial police). Moreover, multiple measures were taken to minimize casualties. A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of hotel, to the French consulate and to a number of major newspapers, demanding that the hotel be evacuated. The Irgun's plan, basically, was to blow up an empty building.

Well, yes. Legitimate target is one of those things I choose not to have arguments over. My experience has been that everyone thinks THEIR targets and means are legitimate. As for warnings, they were a feature of my childhood and I'm sure they made a lot of murderers feel much better about things. My point was that all of this being true, 70 people were dead at the end of it, which was the fault of the Irgun. So, there were Jewish terrorists, they did explode bombs, people did die in significant numbers (there has never been a Palestinian terrorist attack with a casualty count that high, in fact). Acknowledging this does not imply that there is anything more defensible about palestinian terrorism or indeed any terrorism. Denying it makes all arguments predicated on the denial simply fatuous.

100,000 palistinian died since the begining of the intifada, and the intifada started because ariel sharon tried entering the third most holiest place for muslims with 3000 soldiers...
israel is the bad guy here
it obvious, in about 60 years they killed 100 of thousands of childrens, women and elders...
and all were palistineans

how can they be terrorrists, if they are trying to protect there occupied land

palestinians have got a perfectly good case for some form of justice, which is not assisted by making incorrect or wrongheaded statements. If 100,000 palestinians have died since 2000 (which I take leave to doubt), it's through old age and all other causes. The actual conflict related death figures (which are quite troubling enough) are on the order of 6000, roughly double the Israeli death toll from terrorist incidents in the same period.

How can Hamas, IJ and all those other fun-loving murderers be terrorists? It's simple. They kill people at random to make a point. And as a way of protecting their occupied land, it's pretty ineffective, since their actions have provided Israel with an acceptable (to their constituency) cause for annexing ever more of that occupied land.

There's a case to be made, for the concerns of both sides. it's unfortunate that most of the people who care enough to make any case see no validity to the concerns of the other side.

The King David hotel was a military target. The hotel was the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (colonial police). Moreover, multiple measures were taken to minimize casualties. A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of hotel, to the French consulate and to a number of major newspapers, demanding that the hotel be evacuated. The Irgun's plan, basically, was to blow up an empty building.

Its funny that when someone you support does something evil, you will try to find anyway to justify it.

they have nothing else to do.
imagine you are helpless, and your family is getting killed day by day, and you have a puppet gov., and you want to take your revenge, imagine your mom-dad-sis and wife die in ONE day, there are lots of cases like this in palistine, they wont care how the other will feel... screw them, they helped killing them in some way or another, im not with killing civilians on BOTH sides, and after killing your family, they destroy your house, then take the land you farm and build settelment over them
how will you feal?????

Well, yes. Legitimate target is one of those things I choose not to have arguments over. My experience has been that everyone thinks THEIR targets and means are legitimate.
But surely even you, with all the relativist attitude, should see that a building hosting a military command is a bit more legitimate as a target than a school full of kids (remember the Maalot massacre?) :rolleyes:


As for warnings, they were a feature of my childhood and I'm sure they made a lot of murderers feel much better about things.
There's a 'slight' difference between the IRA style warnings and the way the Irgun warned the British, with such a wide dissemination of it. It does not justify the bombing per se, but it does show what the true intent of the attack was.


My point was that all of this being true, 70 people were dead at the end of it, which was the fault of the Irgun. So, there were Jewish terrorists, they did explode bombs, people did die in significant numbers (there has never been a Palestinian terrorist attack with a casualty count that high, in fact). Acknowledging this does not imply that there is anything more defensible about palestinian terrorism or indeed any terrorism. Denying it makes all arguments predicated on the denial simply fatuous.
I'm not denying anything. Yes, there were Jewish terrorists. So what? Even back then, the Palestinians were far more agressive and less picky about their targets. The Jews were being slaughtered one-sidedly until the bloody events of 1929 that wiped out several communities to the last man- after which they formed first Jewish armed organizations that began fighting fire with fire. Read the authentic British police reports of the time- they all praise the Jews for restraint in the face of constant assaults by Al Husseini's Arab maradeurs.

100,000 palistinian died since the begining of the intifada, and the intifada started because ariel sharon tried entering the third most holiest place for muslims with 3000 soldiers...
israel is the bad guy here
it obvious, in about 60 years they killed 100 of thousands of childrens, women and elders...
and all were palistineans

how can they be terrorrists, if they are trying to protect there occupied land
Way to go exaggerating. :rolleyes:

The combined death toll on both sides over 60 years is about 20 thousand- that counting both Jews and Arabs.

And Sharon taking 3000 soldiers to the Temple Mount? You're being ridiculous, of course.

Besides, why shouldn't he visit the Temple Mount? It's a Jewish holy place as well, y'know.

Its funny that when someone you support does something evil, you will try to find anyway to justify it.
Justify? I am merely presenting facts. Easily confirmed facts, by the way.

But surely even you, with all the relativist attitude, should see that a building hosting a military command is a bit more legitimate as a target than a school full of kids (remember the Maalot massacre?) :rolleyes:


There's a 'slight' difference between the IRA style warnings and the way the Irgun warned the British, with such a wide dissemination of it. It does not justify the bombing per se, but it does show what the true intent of the attack was.


I'm not denying anything. Yes, there were Jewish terrorists. So what? Even back then, the Palestinians were far more agressive and less picky about their targets. The Jews were being slaughtered one-sidedly until the bloody events of 1929 that wiped out several communities to the last man- after which they formed first Jewish armed organizations that began fighting fire with fire. Read the authentic British police reports of the time- they all praise the Jews for restraint in the face of constant assaults by Al Husseini's Arab maradeurs.

If you stipulate that the king David Hotel is a legitimate target, or more legitimate on the scale of legitimacy than a school bus (as though some human beings are relatively more disposable than others - and I'm the moral relativist), then do you concede that Palestinians who attack the Israeli army are not terrorists? And if you concede that, are buses legitimate targets given the number of soldiers who travel on them? the concept of a legitimate target is a slippery slope.

Let's stipulate the warnings were made in good faith; they were completely ineffective (their principal difference from IRA warnings, which weren't that effective but were certainly better ounce for ounce than the Irgun's efforts). But let's put even that - and the 70 deaths which followed - to one side; the Irgun intended to blow up a building with people in it. Either the people stayed in the building and died, or they left the building and the Irgun had demonstrated that it's not the justice of your cause that counts, it's how willing you are to kill people. Standing tall in the moral saddle all right.

and one more time for the cheap seats in the back. And that's you too, Arab League, that i'm talking to. The fact that other people were killing you doesn't make killing still other people again a good thing. The fact that you have been restrained, and deliberate, and have used modern technology to kill people doesn't make the dead people any less dead either. When all's said and done, and the blame game is over and everyone's had a good recriminatory time, all the dead guys get to stay dead. Anyone who looks past this so that can point the finger at some other guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If the palestinians want to take back the whole of the West Bank and do it in style, all they need is a strong leader with a good head on his shoulders who can put together a big rolling parade of every woman child and man in the area. Bring the world's media along. And then put on simple clothes, leave your backpacks and your weapons at home and just walk in to each settlement in turn. The Israelis are too damn decent to shoot an obviously peaceful mass protest to bits. It'd be great. Pity I'll never live to see it.

If you stipulate that the king David Hotel is a legitimate target, or more legitimate on the scale of legitimacy than a school bus (as though some human beings are relatively more disposable than others - and I'm the moral relativist), then do you concede that Palestinians who attack the Israeli army are not terrorists? And if you concede that, are buses legitimate targets given the number of soldiers who travel on them? the concept of a legitimate target is a slippery slope.
Only for the slippery people.

There's nothing relativist about saying that attacking a military target is more legitimate than attacking a civilian one. Under the current international law, attacking military targets does not constitute terrorism. In an armed conflict, the military are fair game. Civilians are not.

Attacking a civilian bus because soldiers occasionally travel on them is not a legitimate military action, but an indiscriminate attack on a target that is unlikely to have military value, but certain to host protected persons as defined by the Geneva convention. Besides, the Palestinian terrorists can't even use the excuse you're trying to construct for them. They don't even claim that they're trying to only target soldiers. They take pride in killing any Jews, civilian or military, Israeli or foreign. In fact, they've been known to claim that enemy children are fair game, too- and not just to claim, but to kill them, too.


Let's stipulate the warnings were made in good faith; they were completely ineffective (their principal difference from IRA warnings, which weren't that effective but were certainly better ounce for ounce than the Irgun's efforts). But let's put even that - and the 70 deaths which followed - to one side; the Irgun intended to blow up a building with people in it. Either the people stayed in the building and died, or they left the building and the Irgun had demonstrated that it's not the justice of your cause that counts, it's how willing you are to kill people. Standing tall in the moral saddle all right.
I'm afraid I've lost track of your reasoning here.

We're talking here, basically, about a single isolated case. An action that was, by the way, condemned by the Zionist movement's leadership at the time. Comparisons to the IRA are pretty meaningless since the IRA is outside of the scope of our discussion. For that matter, the IRA and all other European terror groups were nothing short of angels compared to the PLO or the Hamas. You want to compare the Irgun to the IRA- fine with me, but comparing either of them to the Hamas is nothing but a fallacy. There is both a qnaititative and a qualitative difference between them: the Hamas does not warn. They seek to maximize, not minimize, the casualties.


The Israelis are too damn decent to shoot an obviously peaceful mass protest to bits.
It's funny, you know. The same people so eager to equate Israel with the Palestinian mass murderers eventually admit that Israel is "too damn decent" to really do what they're routinely accused of doing. ;)


It'd be great. Pity I'll never live to see it.
You'll get to see it, trust me. In your own country, when tens of millions of starving foreigners will one day march towards your own borders to take what's yours and make it theirs. And your border guards will be too damn decent to do anything about it.

Unarmed aggression will be the next big tool of agressive war.

Only for the slippery people.

There's nothing relativist about saying that attacking a military target is more legitimate than attacking a civilian one. Under the current international law, attacking military targets does not constitute terrorism. In an armed conflict, the military are fair game. Civilians are not.

Attacking a civilian bus because soldiers occasionally travel on them is not a legitimate military action, but an indiscriminate attack on a target that is unlikely to have military value, but certain to host protected persons as defined by the Geneva convention. Besides, the Palestinian terrorists can't even use the excuse you're trying to construct for them. They don't even claim that they're trying to only target soldiers. They take pride in killing any Jews, civilian or military, Israeli or foreign. In fact, they've been known to claim that enemy children are fair game, too- and not just to claim, but to kill them, too.


I'm afraid I've lost track of your reasoning here.

We're talking here, basically, about a single isolated case. An action that was, by the way, condemned by the Zionist movement's leadership at the time. Comparisons to the IRA are pretty meaningless since the IRA is outside of the scope of our discussion. For that matter, the IRA and all other European terror groups were nothing short of angels compared to the PLO or the Hamas. You want to compare the Irgun to the IRA- fine with me, but comparing either of them to the Hamas is nothing but a fallacy. There is both a qnaititative and a qualitative difference between them: the Hamas does not warn. They seek to maximize, not minimize, the casualties.


It's funny, you know. The same people so eager to equate Israel with the Palestinian mass murderers eventually admit that Israel is "too damn decent" to really do what they're routinely accused of doing. ;)


You'll get to see it, trust me. In your own country, when tens of millions of starving foreigners will one day march towards your own borders to take what's yours and make it theirs. And your border guards will be too damn decent to do anything about it.

Unarmed aggression will be the next big tool of agressive war.

"Slippery people"
I'm always fascinated to see how very little time it takes even ostensibly reasonable people to resort to ad hominem arguments.

"Moral relativism"
Israel's official position is that all attacks on Israelis, whether in uniform or not, and by whatever means, are terrorism. If the argument is that attacks on Israeli soldiers are legitimate,it runs against the Israeli government's policies. If the argument is that Israel's soldiers are not legitimate targets, then the whole concept of a legitimate target seems weak to me. It's also interesting to see the Geneva Convention invoked. since it's Israeli government policy that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Occupied Territories. Think of me as a beat cop for the consistency police, if it seems irresistible to resort to personal characterisation to make your case seem more compelling.

"Constructing excuses"
Wilful misunderstanding is always a handy way to move the argument a little way towards the comfort zone of those with strong views, but I was not constructing excuses for terrorism; simply pointing out that every attempt to justify killing by one side is equally susceptible of use by the other.

"Blowing Up the King David"
You may have lost track of my reasoning because you thought I was trying to have an argument with you. I'm not. Not least because you're making a calm and persuasive case - one that I understand without feeling it's complete. I'm not trying to win an argument, although I concede that it will look as though I am trying to score points. I can come across that way.

Another one of the posters had claimed that there had never been any Israeli terrorism. The King David Hotel bombing is the paradigm case to disprove this. I cited it for that reason, not to make moral claims about the value of one atrocity versus another. The question of warnings was then mentioned, and I felt it necessary to point out that warnings which don't have any effect are not really an excuse for the natural consequence of trying to blow up an occupied structure. If the Irgun had REALLY wanted to avoid deaths once the bomb went in, all they had to so was stop messing around with warnings and say "Sorry guys, but we really did mean it. There's a bomb, it's going to go off, it's in the basement/attic/east wing and here's how you switch it off." They didn't do that. They wanted the hotel to blow up. They were prepared to see people die to do that. And people died. So the irgun were culpable, and Holy Womble - in common with the jewish leadership at the time (who could hardly have taken any other line given that so many of the casualties were jewish, but I don't accuse them of anything less than the best motives) - condemn it as such.

My final point was, I'll admit, somewhat opaque. The Irgun's objective was explicitly terrorist. Even if they had succeeded in getting the building evacuated, their objective would have been achieved by the threat of force, not through persuasion or negotiation. Which is most of what's wrong throughout the region. Not the first, not the only, just part of the big pattern.

I note along the way that I missed a post correcting my casualty count. Upwards. I also note that the status of the dead is disputed. The fact that they're dead's my main issue. That doesn't seem to be disputed. Not that "disputed" is much of a signifier. There's not really very much in the Middle East which isn't disputed. On casualty figures, when it comes to the intifada I prefer to use OCHA counts than those from ICT. Let's just say that I find OCHA subject to more balanced and strict accountability - including from the Israeli government - than ICT.

"The IRA And al other European Terror Groups"
I have lived at risk from European terrorism on a number of occasions in my life, in more than one country. I also lived in Israel from 1998-2002, moving regularly throughout the country and the West Bank. Not in the European league. Not even close to my childhood. Not to minimise the suffering Israel has seen, but where I grew up, a bomb attack with fatalities was a DAILY occurence. Not that I explicitly compared any terrorist group from my backyard to any active in the Middle East; it was another poster who compared the warnings of the Irgun to those of the IRA. I execrate them all. When it comes to terrorism, I'm pretty much undiscriminating in my dislike.

"Equating Israel with Palestinian mass murderers"

This is another hoary old chestnut. This kind of thing tends to come out when the bag of actual arguments is getting light. it would be fair enough, were it not for the number of times I've had some aspect of the external reality equated to, well, a range of frankly inappropriate historical experiences.

I didn't set out to equate Israel with anybody's mass murderers; people can draw their own conclusions from the numbers and the background, though in my experience most come to this topic with their minds made up.

But claiming I did, in response to me acknowledging one of the many positive aspects of Israel, both objectively and relative to a lot of the other countries in the neighborhood.... Where's the incentive to be pleasant when that's where things wind up?

Palestine does not exist. it is a name, for a region, created by Romans as an insult.

People claiming to be Palestinian are mostly Jordanian, with Egyptian leadership that inherited its authority from a failed nazi Coup and they called up large numbers of Syrians to join them after their mostly successful Genocide in Lebanon.

Those who focus on “Israeli/Palestinian” dichotomy are trying to distract you from all of the other Islamist Wars, against India, Russia, Serbia, Thailand, ivory Coast, South Africa and everywhere else that Islam shares a border with a non-Islamic country.

If it was “Islam/Israel” that would be a more fair comparison, but if it was “Islam/Infidels”, that would be the most honest of all. Some people think they will be offered peace by Islam if they sacrifice the Jews. It is true that Moslems are instructed by the Koran to exterminate Jews, as soon as they finish exterminating Polytheists, but there would come no peace from such a betrayal. When a dozen Arabs and a dozen Chechens shot three hundred Russian School Children, they did not do so because of Israel. When Kashmiri Rebels from Pakistan set Hindu Children on fire, they do not do so because of Israel. When forty thousand Darfur Africans were taken as slaves last year, it was not because of Israel. When the heads of hundreds of Christians were used to build towers in Serbia, towers which still stand as tourist attractions today, that was not done because of Israel.

Palestinian Officials have made it official, that they would offer Israel nothing in exchange for it’s unilateral “Disengagement”. So be it, Israel disengaged “Unilaterally” because it could can expect nothing for concessions from Palestinians anyway. They do not care about having their own state. They left comfortable lives in other Islamic countries for one reason, to destroy Israel. There is nothing else they want and anything they pretend they want, is nothing but Sorites Paradox..

"Slippery people"
I'm always fascinated to see how very little time it takes even ostensibly reasonable people to resort to ad hominem arguments.
No ad hominem argument here. I am simply fed up way too much with the slippery slope fallacy being employed to equate things that aren't equal. Besides, you can hardly argue that I haven't made my case, even if I did not 100% adhere to the rules of formal politeness.


"Moral relativism"
Israel's official position is that all attacks on Israelis, whether in uniform or not, and by whatever means, are terrorism.
I challenge this assumption's truthfulness. Back it up.


If the argument is that Israel's soldiers are not legitimate targets, then the whole concept of a legitimate target seems weak to me.
In some situations, soldiers may not be legitimate targets either, in accordance with the Hague convention. Shooting a soldier who was captured as a prisoner, for instance, is a war crime. Other than that, no disagreement here. Attacking soldiers qualifies as guerilla warfare, which is not unlawful, but regulated by the international conventions. However, if the same organization that systematically and deliberately targets civilians also attacks soldiers, they do not enjoy a double status. The same people cannot be terrorists today when they blow up a disco club, and "legal" guerillas tomorrow when they shoot a soldier.


It's also interesting to see the Geneva Convention invoked. since it's Israeli government policy that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Occupied Territories.
I've used it for definition purposes only. Whether the Convention applies can make for an interesting discussion of its own. However, if the Geneva Convention does not apply to the territories, there is no conceivable way to make a case against Israel at all. If it does, the Palestinians are breeching it.


"Constructing excuses"
Wilful misunderstanding is always a handy way to move the argument a little way towards the comfort zone of those with strong views, but I was not constructing excuses for terrorism; simply pointing out that every attempt to justify killing by one side is equally susceptible of use by the other.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. You have, whether for the purpose of debate or for whatever other purpose, constructed a justification for civilian buses being legitimate targets- moreover, an artificial, purely hypothetical one that even the Palestinian terrorists themselves do not employ. It is, if you will, a form of strawman argument- constructing an argument that the people you assign it to do not actually use.


"Blowing Up the King David"
You may have lost track of my reasoning because you thought I was trying to have an argument with you. I'm not. Not least because you're making a calm and persuasive case - one that I understand without feeling it's complete. I'm not trying to win an argument, although I concede that it will look as though I am trying to score points. I can come across that way.
If you wern't making an argument- what, exactly, was the point of the post?


Another one of the posters had claimed that there had never been any Israeli terrorism. The King David Hotel bombing is the paradigm case to disprove this. I cited it for that reason, not to make moral claims about the value of one atrocity versus another.
Given the nature of your first post in this thread, which among other fallacies included prejudicial language ("Even on the most pro-Israeli estimates")
and a classic case of style-over-substance scaremongering ("Israel is driving through Palestinian towns, add, in tanks and armoured personnel carriers, destroying buildings, roads and built infrastructure in their path")- forgive me if I doubt your reluctance to pass moral judgements. Not to mention that you're so eager to defend your description of King David hotel bombing as "terrorism", that I am inclined to think that you're making moral claims ;)


The question of warnings was then mentioned, and I felt it necessary to point out that warnings which don't have any effect are not really an excuse for the natural consequence of trying to blow up an occupied structure. If the Irgun had REALLY wanted to avoid deaths once the bomb went in, all they had to so was stop messing around with warnings and say "Sorry guys, but we really did mean it. There's a bomb, it's going to go off, it's in the basement/attic/east wing and here's how you switch it off." They didn't do that. They wanted the hotel to blow up. They were prepared to see people die to do that. And people died. So the irgun were culpable, and Holy Womble - in common with the jewish leadership at the time (who could hardly have taken any other line given that so many of the casualties were jewish, but I don't accuse them of anything less than the best motives) - condemn it as such.
I am not defending the bombing per se. I am pointing out that blowing up the King David hotel was within the guerilla warfare criteria, as the building hosted a number of important military targets, and as the warning shows an attempt to minimize civilian casualties. However bad this act was, it cannot be equated with the actions of those who attack strinctly civilian targets (which King David hotel was not) and seek to maximize the death of innocent people (which Irgun did not).


My final point was, I'll admit, somewhat opaque. The Irgun's objective was explicitly terrorist. Even if they had succeeded in getting the building evacuated, their objective would have been achieved by the threat of force, not through persuasion or negotiation. Which is most of what's wrong throughout the region. Not the first, not the only, just part of the big pattern.
And here you go again. Irgun's objective was not terrorist- for that they would have to be attacking an illegitimate, non-military target, rather than the enemy military headquarters. Their objective was military. But you insist on not distinguishing- why is that?


I note along the way that I missed a post correcting my casualty count. Upwards. I also note that the status of the dead is disputed. The fact that they're dead's my main issue. That doesn't seem to be disputed. Not that "disputed" is much of a signifier. There's not really very much in the Middle East which isn't disputed. On casualty figures, when it comes to the intifada I prefer to use OCHA counts than those from ICT. Let's just say that I find OCHA subject to more balanced and strict accountability - including from the Israeli government - than ICT.
I have never encountered an OCHA statistics that would differentiate between combatants and non-combatants rather than lumping them together to produce a big scary total or breaking down only by age and gender. In addition, the ICT website explains their research methodology and classification in details, while the OCHA does not (but they're known to rely heavily on Palestinian eyewitness accounts as their primary source- a method well and truly discredited by the Jenin case. They also rely on the data provided by UNRWA- another UN orgnization that, by the admission of its director Peter Hansen, freely employs Hamas members).


"Equating Israel with Palestinian mass murderers"

This is another hoary old chestnut. This kind of thing tends to come out when the bag of actual arguments is getting light. it would be fair enough, were it not for the number of times I've had some aspect of the external reality equated to, well, a range of frankly inappropriate historical experiences.
My bag of arguments is full, as you can see. Besides, one wrong equation does not justify another, does it?


I didn't set out to equate Israel with anybody's mass murderers; people can draw their own conclusions from the numbers and the background, though in my experience most come to this topic with their minds made up.

But claiming I did, in response to me acknowledging one of the many positive aspects of Israel, both objectively and relative to a lot of the other countries in the neighborhood.... Where's the incentive to be pleasant when that's where things wind up?
Pleasant?

Excuse me, but you have entered this thread with the aforementioned style-over-substance anti-Israeli scaremongering and a number of unfounded assumptions about Israel's intentions- all of them negative, not a single one of them backed up. You proceded by describing how great, in your opinion, it would have been to see Israel defeated by a Palestinian "peaceful agression"- what was it in your other post about negotiations and peace and stuff?- because the Israelis aren't evil enough to shoot them. And you want bonus points for that? For being nice in the "let's steal all his stuff, he's so nice he won't call the police" kind of way?

Specifically to Holy Womble

As I said, most come to these arguments with their minds made up. Read into my position what you will.

No, wait, you already did.

I should have given it up as a bad job when the eye-rolling started.