NationStates Jolt Archive

Conventional wisdom on this issue says something like this. The Palistianians are fighting against an illegal Isralie occupation, the Isralie settlement program shows that Israel has no intention of freeing Palistine. Thus this impeaches Palistianinan nationalist dreams and increases the viloence. Israel is the large agressor and Palistine the weak victim. Israel must change its policies or be forced to by the international community, if not the viloence will continue.

However there are several mistakes to this analysis. Firstly the occupation is legal. Under UN resolution 242 Israel must give up land occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace. However the legislation delibrately did not say all land. The world recognised the legimacy of the claim to the land where Palistine was. Secondly, the reason that Israel will not give up the land is that the only way it seems to appease many of the Arabs in Palistine and the region around them is for Israel to not exist at all. Hamas have made this point clear, their goal is the destruction of Israel. That goal is shared by many of the other Arab states. Thus to let Palistine go would be alturistic to the point of sucicide for Israel. It would just add one more Israel hating nation to the list. When the Arab world accepts Israel's existance as legitmate, then peace can begin to flourish.

There's more to it than that. There is, and never was a legitimate palestinian nation. In the days of the british mandate, Jewish, christian, and muslim residents of palestine/trans-jordan would all refer to themselves as "palestinian" just as a resident of new york city would refer to himself as a "new-yorker". Palestinian identity had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Arabs have however coopted the term "palestinian people" for their own use, and sadly, this misnomer is firmly lodged in the collective consciousness.

The popular notion of a displaced "palestinian people" is a perverse distortion of the truth. there is an arab nation in historic palestine, and it is called Jordan.

The whole country was a mistake. It was the British Empire's biggest screw-up, and I wish it could be undone.

Conventional wisdom on this issue says something like this. The Palistianians are fighting against an illegal Isralie occupation, the Isralie settlement program shows that Israel has no intention of freeing Palistine. Thus this impeaches Palistianinan nationalist dreams and increases the viloence. Israel is the large agressor and Palistine the weak victim. Israel must change its policies or be forced to by the international community, if not the viloence will continue.
The last sentence is entirely true.

Why? To those who wish to deny Jews basic human rights and statehood, the formation of Israel is objectionable. Likewise the arab nations who lost the was (which they started) have something to grumble about. Israel is a troubled nation, but it has as much right to exist as any other.

By the way, Israel is not an act of the british empire. The formation of the state of Israel began before world war 1, through land purchase, cultivation, diplomacy, statecraft, and ultimately a victorious war for independence against aggressors. The west did not bestow Israel onto the Zionists, they earned their way back into their homeland.

And even if it were an act of the british empire, it would hardly compare with the massacre of the aboriginals of australia or the travesty of eire in terms of a "screw up". Your singling out of Israel betrays your anti-semetic leanings.

The last sentence is entirely true.

The violence will continue whatever pressure the world brings to bear against Israel. The only people who can stop the violence is the palestinians, who continue to support terror, as evidenced by their election of hamas. Israel has repeatedly granted unilateral concessions. Real, actual concessions in exchange for ephemeral goodwill and fleeting cooperation from an implacable and rejectionist enemy. Israel lacks a partner for peace, and is unlikely to find one in a hamas led government.

And even if it were an act of the british empire, it would hardly compare with the massacre of the aboriginals of australia or the travesty of eire in terms of a "screw up".
Eh? None of those things are the defining element in a situation which threatens international peace and security. Israel is the biggest single British cock-up, because the world still has to deal with the mess today, and it will continue to be a problem long into the future.

The violence will continue whatever pressure the world brings to bear against Israel. The only people who can stop the violence is the palestinians, who continue to support terror, as evidenced by their election of hamas. Israel has repeatedly granted unilateral concessions. Real, actual concessions in exchange for ephemeral goodwill and fleeting cooperation from an implacable and rejectionist enemy.

Yeh, they do real concessions, shooting young children as they walk to school. Having millions of people under military rule for 30+ years. Allowing massacres of Palestinian people, at least three times since 1948. Last one 1994!

The Arab population in Israel are second class citizens, while the palestinians were are third-class citizens.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.

Conventional wisdom on this issue says something like this. The Palistianians are fighting against an illegal Isralie occupation, the Isralie settlement program shows that Israel has no intention of freeing Palistine. Thus this impeaches Palistianinan nationalist dreams and increases the viloence. Israel is the large agressor and Palistine the weak victim. Israel must change its policies or be forced to by the international community, if not the viloence will continue.

However there are several mistakes to this analysis. Firstly the occupation is legal. Under UN resolution 242 Israel must give up land occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace. However the legislation delibrately did not say all land. The world recognised the legimacy of the claim to the land where Palistine was. Secondly, the reason that Israel will not give up the land is that the only way it seems to appease many of the Arabs in Palistine and the region around them is for Israel to not exist at all.

Were that the case the US wouldnt have had to use its Veto 33 times since 1970 or so to protect Israel against sanctions. The territory of the West Bank was part of Jordan, as was East Jerusalem. However all rights have been formally given to the Palestinians by the Jordanians for these areas. Secondly there are peace treaties with both Jordan and Egypt. Please try to research what you're going to say amongst unbiased sources, rather than trot out this factually incorrect nonsense. It embarrases all concerned.

The violence will continue whatever pressure the world brings to bear against Israel.
The violence will stop when the Palestinians get a viable state with a workable economy that allows them to provide for themselves independent of Israeli interference.

The only people who can stop the violence is the palestinians, who continue to support terror, as evidenced by their election of hamas.
Hamas was elected in protest to the rampant corruption and ineptitude of Fatah's nearly 40-year rule. The destruction of Israel was not part of Hamas' election platform. They promised to eliminate corruption in government and improve internal security and prosperity. Whether that is what Hamas will actually deliver is debatable, but that is what the Palestinians elected. A vote for Hamas is not a vote for intifada.

Israel has repeatedly granted unilateral concessions. Real, actual concessions in exchange for ephemeral goodwill and fleeting cooperation from an implacable and rejectionist enemy.
Israel has left the miniscule Gaza strip after decades of occupation and oppression. Its residents do not have control of the strip's borders or airspace or an economically feasible way to access the West Bank. They are isolated and impoverished. This is not my definition of "goodwill".

Israel lacks a partner for peace, and is unlikely to find one in a hamas led government.
And yet again, the last statement is the only one I can agree with.

However there are several mistakes to this analysis. Firstly the occupation is legal. Under UN resolution 242 Israel must give up land occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace. However the legislation delibrately did not say all land. The world recognised the legimacy of the claim to the land where Palistine was. Secondly, the reason that Israel will not give up the land is that the only way it seems to appease many of the Arabs in Palistine and the region around them is for Israel to not exist at all. Hamas have made this point clear, their goal is the destruction of Israel. That goal is shared by many of the other Arab states. Thus to let Palistine go would be alturistic to the point of sucicide for Israel. It would just add one more Israel hating nation to the list. When the Arab world accepts Israel's existance as legitmate, then peace can begin to flourish.

This is just some kind of crap to accept an illegal occupation of another people by the Israel nation.

Uh, most of the Arab world has accepted, at least the important ones surrounding Israel. Jordon and Eqypt and at some point in time Lebanon.

So this is just BS to allow Israeli occupation of a people who deserve to be free of another nation that has lowered their standards of living and such.

Yeh, they do real concessions, shooting young children as they walk to school. Having millions of people under military rule for 30+ years. Allowing massacres of Palestinian people, at least three times since 1948. Last one 1994!

The Arab population in Israel are second class citizens, while the palestinians were are third-class citizens.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.
that sums it up perfectly

And even if it were an act of the british empire, it would hardly compare with the massacre of the aboriginals of australia or the travesty of eire in terms of a "screw up". Your singling out of Israel betrays your anti-semetic leanings.


Actually the removal of populations and substitution of settlers bears an eerie resemblance to the "plantation" by Elizabeth and more successfully, Cromwell. As does the denial of the existence of anything before the settlers arrived. The "brits" however, are not to blame for the occupation, or the events of 1948.

I might also point out that the cry of "anti-semite" is one much abused by those lacking a cohesive argument. There are many in Israel who oppose the occupation and recognise the historical wrong done the Palestinians.

The whole country was a mistake. It was the British Empire's biggest screw-up, and I wish it could be undone.It wasn't the british empire's greatest mistake because it wasn't their decision. It was the jewish people that created, insisted, and fought for Israel to exist, esuring its existance - all the British did was wash their hands of the situation. Israel is not a pternalistic creation of western powers, as many arab countries were - it is an organic creation of the people who worked for it for 40 years.
You cavalierly wish it could be undone; fine. But I doubt that the millions of Jews from Russia, Europe, and throughout the middle east that found refuge and welcome in Israel when they had few other options to escape persecution will agree with you. Your perspective is narrowed to todays conflict and suffering, but Israel is much more than a symbol of conflict to those who really know it.

The whole country was a mistake. It was the British Empire's biggest screw-up, and I wish it could be undone.
No, England's biggest screw up is when you decided to appease the Arabs who were siding with Germany and restrict Jews from traveling to the land. The White Paper condemned millions of Jews to death.

Eh? None of those things are the defining element in a situation which threatens international peace and security. Israel is the biggest single British cock-up, because the world still has to deal with the mess today, and it will continue to be a problem long into the future.

No. Kashmir is going to cause more problems in the long run.

No. Kashmir is going to cause more problems in the long run.
Who knows how the future will turn out. So many grave errors of judgement.

There's more to it than that. There is, and never was a legitimate palestinian nation. In the days of the british mandate, Jewish, christian, and muslim residents of palestine/trans-jordan would all refer to themselves as "palestinian" just as a resident of new york city would refer to himself as a "new-yorker". Palestinian identity had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Arabs have however coopted the term "palestinian people" for their own use, and sadly, this misnomer is firmly lodged in the collective consciousness.

The popular notion of a displaced "palestinian people" is a perverse distortion of the truth. there is an arab nation in historic palestine, and it is called Jordan.
Indeed. Thanks for being the first replier and saying that.

Then who were the people who resided in those lands before the Jewish people came.

They are Arab and because of distinctions from other Arab peoples, don't know if it is culture, dialect, or other they were different.

So, this is false. Absolutely false and tries to acknowledge and accept occupation of a people by another. Not going to work, because the land is not israel's it is an illegal occupation, and they are going to lose in the end.

Originally Posted by Hughton
There's more to it than that. There is, and never was a legitimate palestinian nation. In the days of the british mandate, Jewish, christian, and muslim residents of palestine/trans-jordan would all refer to themselves as "palestinian" just as a resident of new york city would refer to himself as a "new-yorker". Palestinian identity had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Arabs have however coopted the term "palestinian people" for their own use, and sadly, this misnomer is firmly lodged in the collective consciousness.

The popular notion of a displaced "palestinian people" is a perverse distortion of the truth. there is an arab nation in historic palestine, and it is called Jordan.

then why was Gaza, Egypt, why was the area controlled by the Turks. Why is only the West Bank Jordanian.

You are making excuses. You have no proof.

The violence will stop when the Palestinians get a viable state with a workable economy that allows them to provide for themselves independent of Israeli interference.Well, I'm not so sure about that. After all the times the violence was supposed to stop after Israeli concessions...


Hamas was elected in protest to the rampant corruption and ineptitude of Fatah's nearly 40-year rule. The destruction of Israel was not part of Hamas' election platform. They promised to eliminate corruption in government and improve internal security and prosperity. Whether that is what Hamas will actually deliver is debatable, but that is what the Palestinians elected. A vote for Hamas is not a vote for intifada.Even if they voted for Hamas on the basis of corruption, wasn't Hamas's position on Israel known? Wasn't a vote for the Nazi's a vote for racisim? Even a vote for Hamas is not a vote for intifada, it most certainly a vote for allowing it.


Israel has left the miniscule Gaza strip after decades of occupation and oppression. Its residents do not have control of the strip's borders or airspace or an economically feasible way to access the West Bank. They are isolated and impoverished. This is not my definition of "goodwill".Wasn't the agreement that the violence would stop after Israel would give up control of the West Bank? It was supposed to be that control would go to the palestinians in stages, and isn't this part of the process?

Then who were the people who resided in those lands before the Jewish people came.You mean those Jews and Christians, as well as the Arabs? You did know that the small population was divided among them, right?

So, this is false. Absolutely false and tries to acknowledge and accept occupation of a people by another. Not going to work, because the land is not israel's it is an illegal occupation, and they are going to lose in the end.You mean like South Vietnam. Or Tibet. Or, until recently, Lebanon. Those are all illegal occupations, but how come you never complain about those?

No. Kashmir is going to cause more problems in the long run.

True. In absolute numbers, the partition of India by the British caused 5 millions displaced and more than 20,000 dead. The set of events kicked off by that resulted in the Bangladeshi genocide (1 to 3 million dead, tens of tousands raped), jihad in Kashmir (around 50,000 dead and 200,000 Pandits displaced), grinding poverty due to unnecessary spending on military, spectre of nuclear war...and no solution is possible to the ideological clash between India and Pakistan under current and foreseeable circumstances.

TG, do you still stand by
Eh? None of those things are the defining element in a situation which threatens international peace and security. Israel is the biggest single British cock-up, because the world still has to deal with the mess today, and it will continue to be a problem long into the future.

Why? To those who wish to deny Jews basic human rights and statehood, the formation of Israel is objectionable. Likewise the arab nations who lost the was (which they started) have something to grumble about. Israel is a troubled nation, but it has as much right to exist as any other.


Actually, Zionism has long fanned the flames of anti-Semitism. First the Zionist movement put pressure on the governments of the UK, Australia, France, and the U.S. to restrict the immigration of Jewish refugees from the Nazis, with the slogan, "One cow in Palestine is worth 1000 Jews in Poland." If unrestricted immigration had been allowed, an estimated 3 million Holocaust victims would've been spared.

In 1947-1948, bourgeois Arab nations used the creation of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as an excuse to carry out ethnic cleansings of Jews, as they have sometimes done in future wars. Similarly, corrupt regimes throughout the Middle East use Israel as a scapegoat for their own backwardness and brutality. Safeguarding these regimes is part of the social function that Israel serves on behalf of the imperialist powers.

Israel's history demonstrates that the country cannot survive as a Jewish-supremacist state without 1) brutal mistreatment of the Palestinians (the administration of the West Bank, and formerly the Gaza Strip, is modeled on American Indian reservations); and 2) aggressive military expansionism. The same was the case with other states ruled by a racial minority. But this naturally occurs the hatred of the rest of the region (hatreds which are then exploited by anti-Semites)--forcing Israel into close alliance with the imperialist powers.

It was world imperialism that unleashed the Holocaust; it is world imperialism that would again not hesitate to sacrifice the Jews if it means higher profits for the ruling trusts; and it is world imperialism, the Jews' worst enemy, that the state of Israel is a lackey of.

As part of this alliance with the imperialist powers, Israel is often asked to carry out their dirty work. One example is when the right-wing military junta took power in Argentina in 1976. It was politically unacceptable for the U.S. to furnish arms to the junta directly--so it gave the arms to Israel, and Israel gave the arms to Argentina. The Argentine government used these arms for--among other things--the systematic murder of 6,000 Jews.

Because of the war against the Palestinians, the Jews living in Israel face police-state restrictions such as arbitrary arrests and pass laws; while their physical security is threatened by terrorist attacks.

This is the Zionist solution to the problems Jews face under capitalism. Relocating the Jews to Israel to cut them off from the rest of the world is no different in principle from relocating them to the ghetto--a "solution" that was tried with equally miserable results (yes, the ghetto was originally created--according to its proponents--for the protection of the Jews ... and its opponents were accused of anti-Semitism). As Leon Trotsky said, "Never has it been more clear that the salvation of the Jewish people is inseparably bound up with the overthrow of the capitalist system."

wasn't the state of Israel and/or Judah formed about 5,000-6,000 years ago?

You mean like South Vietnam. Or Tibet. Or, until recently, Lebanon. Those are all illegal occupations, but how come you never complain about those?

I've never come across anybody trying to justify Tibet, Lebanon (by Syria) or East Timor, or the invasion and on going brutality in Checnya. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of posters.

Israel is a tool, a useful tool, for us here in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

When Iraq was about to get a nuclear facility operational, Israel bombed it.

When Iran is about to get a nuclear facility operational, Israel will bomb it.

These are things we would like to do, but don't want the international fallout from. By having Israel do it for us, we're spared most of the flak about the incident.

So, for the near future, it is beneficial to our interests for Israel to exist.

In retrospect, the establishment of Israel was a mistake. However, it exists now, and does useful things for us, so I see no reason why we should spend the time and effort to demolish something that is occassionally useful to us.

It would be like having a dog that shat all over the lawns of your neighbors, and occassionlly your own. However, the dog does bite this punk kid that tresspasses across your property every so often, so you keep it around.

You mean like South Vietnam. Or Tibet. Or, until recently, Lebanon. Those are all illegal occupations, but how come you never complain about those?

South Vietnam was an American creation. They were suppose to be united.

Tibet should be free, and I am glad the Israel government got their ass kicked.

South Vietnam was an American creation. They were suppose to be united.Actually, North Vietnam illegaly invaded and is now occupying South Vietnam.

...and I am glad the Israel government got their ass kicked.What?

I have said this before and I will say it again:

THE ISRAELIS DID NOT KICK OUT THE ARAB CIVILIANS.
The Arab civilians fled to avoid being in the middle of a war zone. They planned to return after Israel was defeated. This didn't happen. Israel then used the abandoned houses to house immigrants, and the Arab civilians became the "Palestinian refugees".

And Arabs are free and equal citizens in Israel. There are even a few in the Knesset, and one in the cabinet - Salim Tarif (though with the recent shakeup in Israeli politics, any information about the Israeli Cabinet is questionable).

Much claimed "discrimination" against Arabs comes from Arabs not being subject to the draft. Therefore, most Israeli Arabs are not ex-soldiers, and do not get the financial benefits that come with service in the IDF. This results in inferior economic conditions.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.
Pretty much.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.

Thats a very over simplistic notion of it. Israel "took it all" as you say, as a result of fighting defensive wars. Israel has never begun an offensive war. The 1948 war, Egypt attacked Tel Aviv, the 1967 war, Egypt closed off the straits of Terian to Isralie shipping, an act of war. And the Yom Kippur War speaks for itself, the Arab states attacking on the holiest of Jewish days

then why was Gaza, Egypt, why was the area controlled by the Turks. Why is only the West Bank Jordanian.

You are making excuses. You have no proof.

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#b

The violence will stop when the Palestinians get a viable state with a workable economy that allows them to provide for themselves independent of Israeli interference.

Hammas want Israel's destruction. That is their goal. The vilonece will continue from them whether or not a Palistianian state is created. For Israel to allow the Palistianians to have a state just adds one more state to the list of those that hate Israel. Conversely if Palistine actually sincerely wanted peace and would stop attempting the destruction of Israel then Israel would not be able to legitamately continue the occupation

wasn't the state of Israel and/or Judah formed about 5,000-6,000 years ago?

3000 years ago to be exact. It was attacked and rebuilt and attacked and rebuilt with many forigen nations such as Babylon, Assyria, Rome, Greece, Perisa attacking it and occpying it.

I have said this before and I will say it again:

THE ISRAELIS DID NOT KICK OUT THE ARAB CIVILIANS.
The Arab civilians fled to avoid being in the middle of a war zone. They planned to return after Israel was defeated. This didn't happen. Israel then used the abandoned houses to house immigrants, and the Arab civilians became the "Palestinian refugees".

And Arabs are free and equal citizens in Israel. There are even a few in the Knesset, and one in the cabinet - Salim Tarif (though with the recent shakeup in Israeli politics, any information about the Israeli Cabinet is questionable).

Much claimed "discrimination" against Arabs comes from Arabs not being subject to the draft. Therefore, most Israeli Arabs are not ex-soldiers, and do not get the financial benefits that come with service in the IDF. This results in inferior economic conditions.

Here here!

And even if it were an act of the british empire, it would hardly compare with the massacre of the aboriginals of australia or the travesty of eire in terms of a "screw up". Your singling out of Israel betrays your anti-semetic leanings.

Christ! Why does anyone who disagrees with anything Israel does get labelled as an anti-semite on this forum?

Look at how many people criticise places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and rightly so. Do you see people being labelled racist against arabs then? No - that's only when people start insulting the people or the religion, not the country.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.


This is simply not true; the founders of Israel agreed to the partition plan in 1948. They accepted the fair but modest amount of land which they were granted.

The Arabs, on the other hand, rejected the plan outright and invaded 'Israel' in order to destroy the fledgling nation.

The Palestinians have been suffering as a result ever since.

True. In absolute numbers, the partition of India by the British caused 5 millions displaced and more than 20,000 dead. The set of events kicked off by that resulted in the Bangladeshi genocide (1 to 3 million dead, tens of tousands raped), jihad in Kashmir (around 50,000 dead and 200,000 Pandits displaced), grinding poverty due to unnecessary spending on military, spectre of nuclear war...and no solution is possible to the ideological clash between India and Pakistan under current and foreseeable circumstances.




The British 'drew the line' but they did everything they could to prevent the partition of India beforehand.

Mountbatten pleaded with Jinnah to drop his demands for a separate Muslim state, as did Gandhi. But he refused and died soon after as the founder of a new nation.

If anyone should be blamed for the present mess, it's Jinnah; although you also have to respect his guile and determination.

Actually, North Vietnam illegaly invaded and is now occupying South Vietnam.


You ignore the fact that South Vietnamese found a guerrilla war for unification alongside the north, and that the US refused to hold a vote on unification while it controlled the reigns of power.



THE ISRAELIS DID NOT KICK OUT THE ARAB CIVILIANS.

Yes, they did. Upto 750,000 of them. And yes, they made sure they couldn't get back.


And Arabs are free and equal citizens in Israel..

Not according to the US state department (amongst others) they're not.


Israel has never begun an offensive war..

Lebanon. Plus the 1967 war was begun by Israel launching the first military strike. I note you are still cutting and pasting whatever nonsense suits you. 94% of what is now Israel was owned by Arabs in 1946. I suggest as the Americans say you "deal with it".


Conversely if Palistine actually sincerely wanted peace and would stop attempting the destruction of Israel then Israel would not be able to legitamately continue the occupation..

The occupation has led to Hamas, Islamic Jihad suicide bombing, and the blackening of Israels reputation. To then say that the occupation is justified by these things is to put cart before horse.

Lebanon. Plus the 1967 war was begun by Israel launching the first military strike. I note you are still cutting and pasting whatever nonsense suits you. 94% of what is now Israel was owned by Arabs in 1946. I suggest as the Americans say you "deal with it".

Lebenon was a strike against the PLO, and the 1967 war was started by Egypt closing the straits of Tairian to Isralie shipping


The occupation has led to Hamas, Islamic Jihad suicide bombing, and the blackening of Israels reputation. To then say that the occupation is justified by these things is to put cart before horse.

The occupation is justified by the fact that if it was ended, it would not appease Hamas or the people attacking it. Israel will end the occupation when Hamas and those who hold their views accept that Israel is not worth of destruction. If Israel was occupying a nation that was happy with Israel and had no quaraell with them, then it would be stupid. The fact is that the entire Arab Isralie conflict has been continually perpetuated by those who would not reconise Israel as a valid entity.

Adriatica II, listen I don't know what you are trying to do with this thread- your 'education' of others on this subject is laughable. You are as biased as everyone else- it is extremely difficult to find a neutral and objective viewpoint on this topic- and you, are not objective.

So either stop now, or else you'll simply be accused of trolling and looking for fight.

Let it go, and walk away.

Adriatica II, listen I don't know what you are trying to do with this thread- your 'education' of others on this subject is laughable. You are as biased as everyone else- it is extremely difficult to find a neutral and objective viewpoint on this topic- and you, are not objective.

So either stop now, or else you'll simply be accused of trolling and looking for fight.

Let it go, and walk away.

I'm doing exactly the same as what everyone else on this forum is doing. Putting across a viewpoint that I believe makes the most ammount of sense. If you want to discuss that view, fine. But dont criticise me for stating a viewpoint.

You ignore the fact that South Vietnamese found a guerrilla war for unification alongside the north, and that the US refused to hold a vote on unification while it controlled the reigns of power.You ignore the fact that North Vietnam had invaded South Vietnam in 1975, in violation of the Paris Peace Accord. And the Viet Cong was mostly made up of NVA troops.

Lebenon was a strike against the PLO, and the 1967 war was started by Egypt closing the straits of Tairian to Isralie shipping.

The first military strike was by Israel. They say it was a "pre-emptive" attack. I suggest that you look it up.


The occupation is justified by the fact that if it was ended, it would not appease Hamas or the people attacking it. Israel will end the occupation when Hamas and those who hold their views accept that Israel is not worth of destruction. If Israel was occupying a nation that was happy with Israel and had no quaraell with them, then it would be stupid. The fact is that the entire Arab Isralie conflict has been continually perpetuated by those who would not reconise Israel as a valid entity.

Hamas, whatever it wants to do, is incapable of destroying Israel. Secondly, if the point was protection, why were there settlements built there, and why has Israel stated its intention to hold onto them and Arab East Jerusalem?

You ignore the fact that North Vietnam had invaded South Vietnam in 1975, in violation of the Paris Peace Accord. And the Viet Cong was mostly made up of NVA troops.

However that ignores the existence of the NVA and the overwhelming distaste for partition of the Vietnamese people south of the artificial border. If they were generally opposed, why did the US refuse to hold a plebiscite on the matter?

The Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza with the establishment of settlements has nothing to do with Arab conflict. They want land, they got greedy and they wanted land.

Therefore take land from other nations, no matter if they attacked first or not, and place settlements on it which is illegal under the U.N. You can occupy land all you want, but you can't build settlements on it.

Now with North Vietnam, the Viet Cong were not North Vietnamese. They had support from North Vietnam but they were South Vietnamese who wanted to unite Vietnam that did not take place in the accords.

The corrupt South Vietnamese government had basically fallen by the time of 1975 and therefore, the North Vietnamese moved in.

They were to be united anyway so it is not an occupation.

How can a peope who have been occupied for their own lives, and have minimal weapons to Israel destroy it.

They are poor, they have low education thanks to Israel.

This they will destroy us is a freaking excuse. They are smaller your population, all they have are rockets, machine guns, suicide bombers and sticks and stones.

Since 1990s, they have been doing suicide bombing, 1994 I believe not before.

All they had before were sticks and stones, hwo the hell was that going to destroy Israel. Excuses, excuses.

The first military strike was by Israel. They say it was a "pre-emptive" attack. I suggest that you look it up.

I know that. But it doesnt change anything. Egypts closing of the straits of Tairan is an act of war.


Hamas, whatever it wants to do, is incapable of destroying Israel.

Its not just Hamas. Its all the Arab nations around Israel. If they, and the Palistians accepted Israels existance then the peace process may get somewhere.


Secondly, if the point was protection, why were there settlements built there, and why has Israel stated its intention to hold onto them and Arab East Jerusalem?

The settlements are there because the mandate for Israel created by the legue of nations allows them to. And its not as if the Arabs seem to care about settlements. When settlement building was frozen to encourge them to join the camp david talks the Arabs refused. The continung settlement building was not an obsticle to the Oslo agreement and in 2000 when Prime minister Barak offered to dismantle setlements, the Palistianins did not agree to end any fighting.

The Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza with the establishment of settlements has nothing to do with Arab conflict. They want land, they got greedy and they wanted land.

Far too simplistic. The Isralies got the land they had as a result of many things. Mainly the immigration to unnocupied Palistine, the creation of Israel in 1948 and war gains from defensive wars since


Therefore take land from other nations, no matter if they attacked first or not, and place settlements on it which is illegal under the U.N. You can occupy land all you want, but you can't build settlements on it.

UN resolution 242 allows for the Isralies to have the land and build settlements on it untill a lasting peace is achieved in the Middle East.

You can't have it that way when the U.N calls the settlements illegal.

There have been resolutions since Resolution 242.

What are you talking about other Arab nations, you have already signed agreements with Jordan and Egypt. You are having trade talks with other Arab nations. This is just an excuse to maintain the areas of control.

Doesn't matter what Eqypt did in 1967, you did the strike first. You started the war, they are not going to allow you to strike them or other nations and do nothing.

And you say the Arabs moved out by themselves. Wrong, at least three massacres by Israeli forces forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their lands. And then other massacres against other Arab nations will not make them friendly to you.

However that ignores the existence of the NVA and the overwhelming distaste for partition of the Vietnamese people south of the artificial border. If they were generally opposed, why did the US refuse to hold a plebiscite on the matter?How does that relate to what I said? Where did I ignore the existence of the NVA?

Now with North Vietnam, the Viet Cong were not North Vietnamese. They had support from North Vietnam but they were South Vietnamese who wanted to unite Vietnam that did not take place in the accords.

The corrupt South Vietnamese government had basically fallen by the time of 1975 and therefore, the North Vietnamese moved in.

They were to be united anyway so it is not an occupation.This will be my last post on the subject, as this is getting off topic. The Viet Cong weren't North Vietnamese in the begining, but after huge losses against US forces (particularly in the Tet offensive), there was barely anybody left in the south willing to join. So, the ranks of the Viet Cong were filled up with North Vietnamese, making the VC nothing more than a puppet of North Vietnam. Hell, the VC didn't want to unify the north and south, but I won't go into detail about that (to dificult to find sources). Anyway, in 1975, the NVA didn't just 'move in'. They actually invaded, and had to fight South Vietnamese forces to get through. And it is an occupation, as it is in violation of the Paris Peace Accord.

You can't have it that way when the U.N calls the settlements illegal.

There have been resolutions since Resolution 242.

Indeed. But do any of them specifcly make 242 obselete?


What are you talking about other Arab nations, you have already signed agreements with Jordan and Egypt. You are having trade talks with other Arab nations. This is just an excuse to maintain the areas of control.

In 1967 six nations attacked Israel supported by a further 4. None of them have really changed their attitudes to Israel since then. They have just accepted they cannot enact what they want to.


Doesn't matter what Eqypt did in 1967, you did the strike first. You started the war, they are not going to allow you to strike them or other nations and do nothing.

Let me put it this way. If America was blockaded by the chienese fleet, allowing no ships in or out of America, do you think America would just sit by and take it. Do you think if anyone was blockaded in anyway, would they just stand there and take it. No. Egypt blockaded the straits of Tairan. Blocking Israels only shipping route in the region


And you say the Arabs moved out by themselves. Wrong, at least three massacres by Israeli forces forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their lands. And then other massacres against other Arab nations will not make them friendly to you.

Kindly prove this. In 1948 the only reason there were so many Arab refugees is that they left because they thought the area would become a warzone and they would return when the Arabs won. They didnt win, they cant return.

You can't have it that way when the U.N calls the settlements illegal.

There have been resolutions since Resolution 242.

What are you talking about other Arab nations, you have already signed agreements with Jordan and Egypt. You are having trade talks with other Arab nations. This is just an excuse to maintain the areas of control.

Doesn't matter what Eqypt did in 1967, you did the strike first. You started the war, they are not going to allow you to strike them or other nations and do nothing.

And you say the Arabs moved out by themselves. Wrong, at least three massacres by Israeli forces forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their lands. And then other massacres against other Arab nations will not make them friendly to you.So you're saying that the Arabs should get their land back. Should the Jews, then, get their land back, as well?

I know that. But it doesnt change anything. Egypts closing of the straits of Tairan is an act of war. ..



Its not just Hamas. Its all the Arab nations around Israel. If they, and the Palistians accepted Israels existance then the peace process may get somewhere..

But there are peace treaties with Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. In addition the PLO has recognised the right of Israel to exist for years.



The settlements are there because the mandate for Israel created by the legue of nations allows them to. And its not as if the Arabs seem to care about settlements. When settlement building was frozen to encourge them to join the camp david talks the Arabs refused. The continung settlement building was not an obsticle to the Oslo agreement and in 2000 when Prime minister Barak offered to dismantle setlements, the Palistianins did not agree to end any fighting.

There is no mandate for settlements in the West Bank, Golan or any of the occupied territories whatsoever. Thats the international legal verdict, not my opinion on the matter. The settlement building has always increased as peace talks loomed in order to grab as much land as possible in case of an agreement. In addition you said the occupation was for Israels security earlier. Now you are changing tune and trying to justify settlement.

But there are peace treaties with Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. In addition the PLO has recognised the right of Israel to exist for years.

Yes, but the fact remains that if you allowed Palistine to be a sepereate soveign state now, it would continue attacking Israel.


There is no mandate for settlements in the West Bank, Golan or any of the occupied territories whatsoever. Thats the international legal verdict, not my opinion on the matter. The settlement building has always increased as peace talks loomed in order to grab as much land as possible in case of an agreement. In addition you said the occupation was for Israels security earlier. Now you are changing tune and trying to justify settlement.

Not really. The settlement is legitamate, but the ocupations purposes is security. It isnt as if Israel has never stoped the settlers to encourage peace. See Camp David accords and Prime Minsiter Barak's offer to dismantle settlements in exchange for peace. The Isralies want peace, and they know they will not get it if they simpley let Palistine become a state yet. They have to wait untill it demonstrates it will not continue attacking Israel.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. After all the times the violence was supposed to stop after Israeli concessions...

Well, why don't we try it and see :rolleyes: Funny how people who aren't impoverished and oppressed aren't as keen on terrorism in general.

Even if they voted for Hamas on the basis of corruption, wasn't Hamas's position on Israel known? Wasn't a vote for the Nazi's a vote for racisim? Even a vote for Hamas is not a vote for intifada, it most certainly a vote for allowing it.

Yay, we have a Nazi reference! :p

A vote for Hamas is not a vote for "allowing" intifada, either. They had an option between a party that has not helped the Palestinian situation in decades versus a party that has already done a great deal of work for the poor. I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that Hamas isn't merely the 'kill all infidels' party. Hell, Hamas wasn't even big on campaigning for a non-secular government! Sure, it's part of what Hamas wants in the long run, but they, like all political parties, campaigned on the part of their platform that people *wanted*. Palestinians want security and jobs, not intifada and religious rule.

Wasn't the agreement that the violence would stop after Israel would give up control of the West Bank? It was supposed to be that control would go to the palestinians in stages, and isn't this part of the process?

There was no agreement at all about the Gaza pullout. It was unilateral. The Palestinians promised nothing, nor do they even have the capacity to promise anything at this point because there is an utter lack of internal security. Furthermore, the Israelis have no intention of giving up control of the borders and airspace of the Gaza strip, as they have said several times before, nor do they have any intention of helping to improve the economic conditions in that area. They have not accepted the 'Roadmap to Peace' that the Europeans and Americans endorse; their version is far more scaled down, with far fewer concessions to the Palestinians.

Yeh, they do real concessions, shooting young children as they walk to school. Having millions of people under military rule for 30+ years. Allowing massacres of Palestinian people, at least three times since 1948. Last one 1994!

The Arab population in Israel are second class citizens, while the palestinians were are third-class citizens.

Now, Palestine has been a province of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Britain. Now, Britain came up with the idea of splitting it in two, but the Israelis got greedy and took it all.

To the bolded section... how was it the Palestineans lost ALL their land ? History tells us the Palestineans (fed by greed and intolerance themselves) engaged in an illegal act of international warfare, attacking Israel. Their failure is what brought about the loss of their state, not the greed of Israel.
Just remember, has Palestine won that war, every Israeli would have been killed or expelled from the land... the same was not extended to the Palestines under Israeli occupation (which you should be thankful for).

To your other points, while some are true, you cannot deny the concession already extended from the oslo accords which would have established the palestinean state, the pull out of gaza (and now schedulaed pulls from sections of the west bank) signal a willingness on the part of Israel. However, what concession has Paelstine made ? no disarmorment, tenuious ceasefires at best, continued sucidie bombings of innocent civilians... If you fail to see these realities then it is only because of ur biasness... not a willingness to move forward towards peace

Hammas want Israel's destruction. That is their goal.

It is one of many goals, and not one that is currently in the forefront of Palestinian politics.

The vilonece will continue from them whether or not a Palistianian state is created.

Except that it would be political suicide for them to continue the violence when the Palestinian people are not in favor of doing so.

For Israel to allow the Palistianians to have a state just adds one more state to the list of those that hate Israel.

Yes, but none of them have attacked Israel lately, have they? Plenty of states hate the US, but that doesn't make them automatically dangerous to it. It's quite simple: if the Palestinians have more to lose than to gain by violence, they will not indulge in it. At this point, there is very little violence in the area compared with several years ago because there are hopeful signs for them.

Conversely if Palistine actually sincerely wanted peace and would stop attempting the destruction of Israel then Israel would not be able to legitamately continue the occupation

What makes you think that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah even had the *ability* to stop the violence? It had no hope in hell of stopping Hamas from doing exactly as it pleased, even under Arafat (not that he much cared to stop the violence, anyway). And how does the fact that the Palestinians don't recognize the occupation as legitimate make the occupation more legitimate?

Well, why don't we try it and see Funny how people who aren't impoverished and oppressed aren't as keen on terrorism in general.
We already have tried it. Israel has given plenty of concessions as a start. I have yet to see the palestinians return the favor. And there are plenty of impoverished and oppressed people in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. I don't think that's Israel's fault.

Yay, we have a Nazi reference! :p

A vote for Hamas is not a vote for "allowing" intifada, either. They had an option between a party that has not helped the Palestinian situation in decades versus a party that has already done a great deal of work for the poor. I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that Hamas isn't merely the 'kill all infidels' party. Hell, Hamas wasn't even big on campaigning for a non-secular government! Sure, it's part of what Hamas wants in the long run, but they, like all political parties, campaigned on the part of their platform that people *wanted*. Palestinians want security and jobs, not intifada and religious rule.You don't seem to get my point. It's no big secret that Hamas is for intifada. Sure, they also have their charities and all, but their main purpose has always been and still is the destruction of Israel. Weather or not the average palestinian actually supports intifada doesn't matter. When they voted for Hamas, they voted for the entire platform, and they knew this full well. Supposing that the palestinians don't actually support intifada, the fact that Hamas's position didn't affect their vote shows just how much they care about peace. Not that Fatah is much better...

Its not just Hamas. Its all the Arab nations around Israel. If they, and the Palistians accepted Israels existance then the peace process may get somewhere.

There is obviously not just one party at fault here. Yes, the Arab nations should recognize Israel, if only because it should be obvious by now that it's there to stay. On the other hand, if Israel waits for that to happen before continuing the peace process, there will be on again, off again intifadas until hell freezes over. Being pragmatic, it stands to reason that giving some concessions to the Palestinians that should have been given decades ago anyway can only help the situation.

The settlements are there because the mandate for Israel created by the legue of nations allows them to. And its not as if the Arabs seem to care about settlements. When settlement building was frozen to encourge them to join the camp david talks the Arabs refused. The continung settlement building was not an obsticle to the Oslo agreement and in 2000 when Prime minister Barak offered to dismantle setlements, the Palistianins did not agree to end any fighting.
The settlements in the West Bank are seen as illegal by the international community. End of story. Any settlements in Israel proper are fine and dandy.

As for the historic stalls in the peace process, I think we can all agree that there was no hope in hell of peace under Yasser Arafat. He's dead now. The intifada is on hold. This is the best chance the Israelis and Palestinians have had for peace in decades. The Israelis aren't really in a position where they can just "give up" on the process. They carry the biggest burden in it at the moment because all of the concessions are theirs to make. There is no single organization in the Palestinian territories that has the ability to stop violence wholesale, but give them a reason to stop, and they will. There will always be a few hardcore crazy people, but such is life. I'm all for the unilateral pullouts; I just hope they are followed up by a great deal of foreign aid to create new infrastructure and jobs, because otherwise the land itself is worthless.

Except that it would be political suicide for them to continue the violence when the Palestinian people are not in favor of doing so.If it didn't stop them from voting for Hamas once, it probably won't stop them from voting for them again.

Yes, but none of them have attacked Israel lately, have they? Plenty of states hate the US, but that doesn't make them automatically dangerous to it. It's quite simple: if the Palestinians have more to lose than to gain by violence, they will not indulge in it. At this point, there is very little violence in the area compared with several years ago because there are hopeful signs for them.So just because there aren't as many attacks against Israel (thanks to the IDF) means that it's okay now?

What makes you think that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah even had the *ability* to stop the violence? It had no hope in hell of stopping Hamas from doing exactly as it pleased, even under Arafat (not that he much cared to stop the violence, anyway). And how does the fact that the Palestinians don't recognize the occupation as legitimate make the occupation more legitimate?The violence will stop when the Palestinians get a viable state with a workable economy that allows them to provide for themselves independent of Israeli interference.Hm... So the the PA can't stop the violence, but the violence will somehow stop as soon as the palestinians get their own country. Intersting.

You don't seem to get my point. It's no big secret that Hamas is for intifada. Sure, they also have their charities and all, but their main purpose has always been and still is the destruction of Israel. Weather or not the average palestinian actually supports intifada doesn't matter. When they voted for Hamas, they voted for the entire platform, and they knew this full well. Supposing that the palestinians don't actually support intifada, the fact that Hamas's position didn't affect their vote shows just how much they care about peace. Not that Fatah is much better...

So the Palestinians are supposed to live in squalor under a corrupt government that hasn't delivered peace despite being in power for decades just to keep out Hamas?

And I think you missed the part where the destruction of Israel was not part of Hamas' election platform! It is part of their charter, yes, but not part of their platform. In other words, it is not part of their declared agenda as an elected political party. I'm incredibly skeptical about Hamas' ability to govern and to not screw up the peace process, personally, but I can understand why the Palestinians voted for them, and it had nothing to do with even a tacit support of more violence. They simply had to choose the lesser of two evils, and for the Palestinians, that is Hamas. Maybe the rest of the world doesn't see it that way, but hey, the rest of the world wishes it could have had a say in the US elections, too ;)

So the Palestinians are supposed to live in squalor under a corrupt government that hasn't delivered peace despite being in power for decades just to keep out Hamas?

And I think you missed the part where the destruction of Israel was not part of Hamas' election platform! It is part of their charter, yes, but not part of their platform. In other words, it is not part of their declared agenda as an elected political party. I'm incredibly skeptical about Hamas' ability to govern and to not screw up the peace process, personally, but I can understand why the Palestinians voted for them, and it had nothing to do with even a tacit support of more violence. They simply had to choose the lesser of two evils, and for the Palestinians, that is Hamas. Maybe the rest of the world doesn't see it that way, but hey, the rest of the world wishes it could have had a say in the US elections, too ;)I'll concede that point, on the basis that I realized that Fatah isn't any better than Hamas on the violence.

If it didn't stop them from voting for Hamas once, it probably won't stop them from voting for them again.

Uh, you do realize that Hamas has not been attacking Israel lately, right? I'm not saying they're fluffy bunnies right now, but if they turned back to total war on Israel, they would not have the support of the average Palestinian.

So just because there aren't as many attacks against Israel (thanks to the IDF) means that it's okay now?
No, it means that things are better. Incidentally, the IDF has violated the ceasefire far more often than Hamas.

Does nobody think that in the long term that Israel is doomed, surrounded by enemies that demographically are outstripping them by miles. Wether the Hamas and Israel agree or not is irrelevant as in twnety years time Israel will be even more besieged than it is already.

While i personally in the past was anti-israel and pro-palestine my views have changed drastically over the last 4-5 years not so much due to the intifada but due to the widening conflict between the Islamic world and the west, we in the west have reached a sithuation where as a cultural group (judeo-christian, capitalist, western whatever you want to call it) have to take a side. Israel for all its faults has maintained a democratic state (at least outside of the occupied areas) where they is the rule of law and to a certain extent freedom of speech, this is simply not mirrored in any of the surrounding Arab nations (even Jordan who in my opinion is the least corrupt of a bad bunch). History is full of injustice, palastine is not the first and it will not be the last...but i think Israel must allow Palestine to become a viable nationstate (for what of a better term) both socially and economically otherwise the peace accord will never work, the palestinian resistance has shown that it has endurance, enough endurance to continue a struggle for some time, this is something i think Israel cannot match no matter how many tanks and helicopters are thrown into the fight, how do you fight an idea? with an idea? has Israel got an idea to sell to the arabs??

Uh, you do realize that Hamas has not been attacking Israel lately, right?Yeah, because the IDF has taken out all of it's infrastructure. That's why they were pushing for the cease fire. If they could attack, they wouldn't hesitate.


No, it means that things are better. Incidentally, the IDF has violated the ceasefire far more often than Hamas.When has the IDF violated the cease fire? Wasn't it after the palestinians fired those 40 rockets at Sderot? The fact is that Israel hasn't broken the cease fire, the palestinians have, and the IDF has only responded.

Yeah, because the IDF has taken out all of it's infrastructure. That's why they were pushing for the cease fire. If they could attack, they wouldn't hesitate.
You'll hear no arguments from me on that point, but the fact remains that Hamas, whether by its own free will or due to necessity, is not nearly so violent as it used to be.

When has the IDF violated the cease fire? Wasn't it after the palestinians fired those 40 rockets at Sderot? The fact is that Israel hasn't broken the cease fire, the palestinians have, and the IDF has only responded.
It was not only after the mortar bombing of Sderot; there were plenty of incursions attempting to draw out Hamas militants before that, and afterward there have been targeted attacks against Hamas members that don't necessarily take civilians into account (still, I will say that it is a damn sight better than their usual shooting of thirteen-year-olds throwing rocks at them). As for the rockets, that happened right after the Gaza strip was freed and things were pretty anarchic. That doesn't excuse it, but it's not as if that is regular practice, nor is it even possible to firmly pin the bombing on Hamas.

You'll hear no arguments from me on that point, but the fact remains that Hamas, whether by its own free will or due to necessity, is not nearly so violent as it used to be.It might be just me, but don't you remember how there were no attacks immediatley before the withdrawl?


It was not only after the mortar bombing of Sderot; there were plenty of incursions attempting to draw out Hamas militants before that, and afterward there have been targeted attacks against Hamas members that don't necessarily take civilians into account (still, I will say that it is a damn sight better than their usual shooting of thirteen-year-olds throwing rocks at them). As for the rockets, that happened right after the Gaza strip was freed and things were pretty anarchic. That doesn't excuse it, but it's not as if that is regular practice, nor is it even possible to firmly pin the bombing on Hamas.I didn't firmly pin it on Hamas, I pinned it on the palestinians (the terrorist organizations). And it became regular practice to fire off a few of those a day soon after that. About those incursions, if you are reffering to those in the West Bank (you know, those higher ups responsible for countless attacks on Israel a few years back), they were already being hunted down. As for the not taking civilians into account, I guess they just decided it wasn't worth it. They took civilians into account earlier, and you see the bad press they got. Now, they don't care as much, and for some reason, there's less bad PR.

It might be just me, but don't you remember how there were no attacks immediatley before the withdrawl?

What's your point? With the IDF crawling around everywhere evacuating settlements, it would be a pretty dumb time to attack.

I didn't firmly pin it on Hamas, I pinned it on the palestinians (the terrorist organizations).

But then that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I'm talking about how both Hamas and the IDF have acted during the ceasefire. Terrorist groups that aren't part of the ceasefire anyway have no bearing on the discussion.

And it became regular practice to fire off a few of those a day soon after that.

Certainly not by Hamas. My point is that in recent months, Hamas has been restrained when compared to the IDF. Islamic Jihad and Co. are another matter entirely. The only thing that will stop those groups from doing whatever they want is for the Palestinian Authority to become more authoritative, which it didn't have the firepower for under Fatah and which it won't have the will for under Hamas.

About those incursions, if you are reffering to those in the West Bank (you know, those higher ups responsible for countless attacks on Israel a few years back), they were already being hunted down.

Then arrest them, don't bomb them and take civilians out, too.

As for the not taking civilians into account, I guess they just decided it wasn't worth it. They took civilians into account earlier, and you see the bad press they got. Now, they don't care as much, and for some reason, there's less bad PR.

Are you kidding? The Israelis are being waaay more careful of civilians now than in the past (mostly, in my opinion, because it is easier when they are simply conducting targeted attacks that don't involve troop deployment and hot tempers).

When did Israel ever get bad press because it was careful to not harm civilians in its attacks? :confused: Seems to me that the outrage was over exactly the opposite.

What's your point? With the IDF crawling around everywhere evacuating settlements, it would be a pretty dumb time to attack.I meant immedeatly before that. The decision to withdraw was made in a calm.

But then that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I'm talking about how both Hamas and the IDF have acted during the ceasefire. Terrorist groups that aren't part of the ceasefire anyway have no bearing on the discussion.So if palestinians get their own country, the violence would stop, but only from certain groups. Doesn't sound like a very good trade-off to me.

Certainly not by Hamas. My point is that in recent months, Hamas has been restrained when compared to the IDF. Islamic Jihad and Co. are another matter entirely. The only thing that will stop those groups from doing whatever they want is for the Palestinian Authority to become more authoritative, which it didn't have the firepower for under Fatah and which it won't have the will for under Hamas.So, again, there won't be an effort for peace on the palestinian's part.

Then arrest them, don't bomb them and take civilians out, too.If you could point out where I said they bomb them. I know it doesn't matter, but still...

Are you kidding? The Israelis are being waaay more careful of civilians now than in the past (mostly, in my opinion, because it is easier when they are simply conducting targeted attacks that don't involve troop deployment and hot tempers).

When did Israel ever get bad press because it was careful to not harm civilians in its attacks? :confused: Seems to me that the outrage was over exactly the opposite.Well, what sticks out most in my mind is Jenin. You know, that 'massacre' where the IDF indiscriminantly killed everyone in the city...with ground forces. There are a bunch of others, just think of any 'massacre', and you'll find it was probably done by ground forces.

Yes, but the fact remains that if you allowed Palistine to be a sepereate soveign state now, it would continue attacking Israel.


So you acknowledge the fact, despite you conveniently not mentioning it when you stated

In 1967 six nations attacked Israel supported by a further 4. None of them have really changed their attitudes to Israel since then. They have just accepted they cannot enact what they want to.
to another poster. You seem to be rather disengenous when it comes to mentioning these "little points".

Mainly the immigration to unnocupied Palistine,.

You mean unoccupied except for the Arabs who you claim left willingly but I say (as does the record) were forced out. Yet again you contradict yourself.


Not really. The settlement is legitamate, but the ocupations purposes is security. It isnt as if Israel has never stoped the settlers to encourage peace. See Camp David accords and Prime Minsiter Barak's offer to dismantle settlements in exchange for peace. The Isralies want peace, and they know they will not get it if they simpley let Palistine become a state yet. They have to wait untill it demonstrates it will not continue attacking Israel.

I'm sorry, but you claimed to another poster

UN resolution 242 allows for the Isralies to have the land and build settlements on it untill a lasting peace is achieved in the Middle East.
.

Below is the full text of resolution 242. Nowhere does it mention settlement. Quite the opposite, if you read the part about "acquistion of territory by war".

"Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Now there are three possibilities - you have never read the text, and are going on what some uniformed idiot told you, you read the text and you are lying, or that you are quite literally making this up as you write it. How could a resolution propose something thats a direct breach of the Geneva convention? How could settlement go on until a solution was found and then stop, bearing in mind that a withdrawal is inevitable? Were the settlers to only use mobile homes and be issued fresh tires and given a lift back to Israel when everybody was "fwends" again?

So you acknowledge the fact, despite you conveniently not mentioning it when you stated

to another poster. You seem to be rather disengenous when it comes to mentioning these "little points".


In case you hadnt noticed those are national governments. I said "Palistianians" IE the civilans and the terrorist groups.



You mean unoccupied except for the Arabs who you claim left willingly but I say (as does the record) were forced out. Yet again you contradict yourself.


Less people were moved as a result of the creation of Israel than were moved by the creation of the Aswan dam, and the Aswan dam made them move further. Arab governments have no problem moving their own people about arguably in the same way.


I'm sorry, but you claimed to another poster

Below is the full text of resolution 242. Nowhere does it mention settlement. Quite the opposite, if you read the part about "acquistion of territory by war".

Now there are three possibilities - you have never read the text, and are going on what some uniformed idiot told you, you read the text and you are lying, or that you are quite literally making this up as you write it. How could a resolution propose something thats a direct breach of the Geneva convention? How could settlement go on until a solution was found and then stop, bearing in mind that a withdrawal is inevitable? Were the settlers to only use mobile homes and be issued fresh tires and given a lift back to Israel when everybody was "fwends" again?

MYTH

“Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal.”

FACT

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.”

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.1

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote.2

And again

MYTH

“Settlements are an obstacle to peace.”

FACT

Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace.

- From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
- From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
- In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
- One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.
- In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
- Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
- In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

UN resolution 242 says territories must be given back. Not all territories, a delibrate ommision made when drawing up the resolution. The Isralies did give back the vast majority of the terrotries they gained from 1967. And guess what, those states they gave terriory to they have signed peace treaties with. But the Palisitaians will not accept peace. Thus the Isralies have not let them go. Once they behave peaceably, and dont elect a terrorist government (I dont care how much social charity work they do, Hammas blow up people indiscriminately. And dont call the IDF terrorists. Terrorists kill civilians intentionally, aiming for maximum civilian casulties. Armed forces try to kill the terrorists, they dont go around massacring civilians. They may kill civilians, but only as a result of the terrorists hiding among the civilians)

FACT

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.”

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.1

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote.2

Surprisingly it comes from a site that would be benefitcial to Israel and their position. What a surprise.

Surprisingly it comes from a site that would be benefitcial to Israel and their position. What a surprise.

Why dont you instead of attacking their bias, attack the facts themselves, proving them wrong or exagerated or misrepresnted in some way, thus showing the negative effects of the bias.

Bias exists in all things. But just because you can show that it has a bias, doesnt make the facts wrong. A British historian may be biased towards Britain analysing WW2. But that doesnt mean that fighter command didnt win the battle of Britain.

Kindly prove this. In 1948 the only reason there were so many Arab refugees is that they left because they thought the area would become a warzone and they would return when the Arabs won. They didnt win, they cant return.

El Amish Massacre



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#IDF_killings_of_Egyptian_prisoners_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila

I do not worry too much about Hamas being a terrorist group and being elected to power. They will become corrupt and incompetent and just another political party. Power does that to everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan#Reactions_to_the_plan

Here is what was exacltly said about the U.N plan and other links inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

Palestinian Exodus

El Arish Massacre:

This is where Israeli forces slaughtered and estimated 1,000+ Eqyptian prisoners of war. But, it didn't stop there; they then attacked the U.S.S Liberty killing 34 U.S sailors, and finally to top it off, they attacked a U.N convoy headed to El Arish, to see if an atrocity had been committed, and they gunned down the unarmed U.N peacekeepers in cold blood.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-uss-liberty.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

In case you hadnt noticed those are national governments. I said "Palistianians" IE the civilans and the terrorist groups.

No, you stated exactly what I quoted you as saying.

In 1967 six nations attacked Israel supported by a further 4. None of them have really changed their attitudes to Israel since then. They have just accepted they cannot enact what they want to.

I'd call peace treaties etc a "change of attitude", especially as Egypt has signed on.


Less people were moved as a result of the creation of Israel than were moved by the creation of the Aswan dam, and the Aswan dam made them move further. Arab governments have no problem moving their own people about arguably in the same way.

Wow! That makes ethnic cleansing ok then!


UN resolution 242 says territories must be given back.

However the majority legal opinion, as well, I suspect, as though who might say otherwise realise that this does not overule certain guiding principles ie "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ". A blind eye was turned in 1948 but expecting it twice is chancing ones arm. In addition, settling your own population on soil outside of your international boundaries is a complete no-no, regardless of whether you're temporarily in charge due to sudden victory before negotiations or in charge by mandate of the UN. Theres no justification for it, particularily in our favourite part time excuse "Those areas are needed as a buffer".


But the Palisitaians will not accept peace. .

The Palestinians do not have a force capable of attacking Israel in a direct way. They never have had. Palestinian violence is, for the last 30 plus years, directed at ending the occupation. Therefore by occupying the territories Israel provokes the violence it (occassionally) says it cannot leave because of.


And dont call the IDF terrorists. Terrorists kill civilians intentionally, aiming for maximum civilian casulties.

Strange then, that the proffesional army seems to be hitting far more civillians than the people deliberatly targeting them. One could almost think they werent trying to miss them at all......

"Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank
and Gaza, including more than six hundred children. During the same period, Palestinian fighters havekilled more than nine hundred Israelis inside Israel and in the OPT. Most of those killed on both sides were civilians."
http://http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf (http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf)

That "trying to get the terrorists" stuff doesn't explain this kind of thing, does it? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4274400.stm)


Armed forces try to kill the terrorists, they dont go around massacring civilians. They may kill civilians, but only as a result of the terrorists hiding among the civilians.

So when the odd school child is shot dead by a sniper, where exactly was the terrorist he was aiming down his telescopic scope? Hidden in with the other 13 year old girls?

Plus I'd like you to say that to this mans face (http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/macdonald_censored020318.ram)

To be honest Union, that first site you've linked to in post 80 isn't exactly "reliable". Nazi anti-semite bollocksology, the truth be told.

Good post.

I don't really believe that IDF forces are goody-goody people, they have killed innocent civilians as many times as the terrorists and have killed prisoners and have worked to slaughter Arab and Palestinian people just as much as the terrorists in the Palestinian territories do.

Sorry, about that.

No, you stated exactly what I quoted you as saying.

I'd call peace treaties etc a "change of attitude", especially as Egypt has signed on.

They signed on because they lost. The Palistianian terrorists havent stoped


Wow! That makes ethnic cleansing ok then!


Ethnic cleansing involves genocide. Israel is not guilty of genocide. This shows that Arab governments are quite happy to move their own people in greater numbers, more seriously disrupting their lives. There is no point in claiming Israels movement of people in 1948 was anything the Arabs dont normally tollerate


However the majority legal opinion, as well, I suspect, as though who might say otherwise realise that this does not overule certain guiding principles ie "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ". A blind eye was turned in 1948 but expecting it twice is chancing ones arm. In addition, settling your own population on soil outside of your international boundaries is a complete no-no, regardless of whether you're temporarily in charge due to sudden victory before negotiations or in charge by mandate of the UN. Theres no justification for it, particularily in our favourite part time excuse "Those areas are needed as a buffer".

I hate to break it to you but in 1948 the Palistianins and five Arab nations attacked Israel. That was a defensive war. The Arab nations were trying to essentially exteminate Israel. On May 17th 1948 an asscociated press account said this
"Arab planes hit Tel Aviv; invader hammering Jewish outposts" "Dispactches from Arab capitals said te invasion armies of five arab nations hammered away with air and artilliary attacks on outlying Jewish settlements". The report continues by describing shelling of Jewish homes in Tel Aviv and Afikim and Ein Geg, where no millitary outposts were. That terriory was taken as part of a defensive war. The Isralies have their right to take it. As for arguing wheteher it is internationally legal to build setlements on it, the geneva convention states that its only a probelm if it is forceablely moving people. The UN resolution 242 gives Israel the right to administer the territories under the ocupation untill there is peace. Which makes sense. If the Palistianians stop the fighting, then they will have their land. If they dont, they wont.



The Palestinians do not have a force capable of attacking Israel in a direct way. They never have had. Palestinian violence is, for the last 30 plus years, directed at ending the occupation. Therefore by occupying the territories Israel provokes the violence it (occassionally) says it cannot leave because of.

Because of terrorisim. Israel will not allow a coutry to exist right on its doorstep that harbours people who will go into their country and blow up Isralie civilians. If they were interested in ending the ocupation, they would target the millitary. That isnt what has been happening


Strange then, that the proffesional army seems to be hitting far more civillians than the people deliberatly targeting them. One could almost think they werent trying to miss them at all......

"Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank
and Gaza, including more than six hundred children. During the same period, Palestinian fighters havekilled more than nine hundred Israelis inside Israel and in the OPT. Most of those killed on both sides were civilians."
http://http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf (http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf)

Its not really the Isralies fault if the terrorists hide among civilians


That "trying to get the terrorists" stuff doesn't explain this kind of thing, does it? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4274400.stm)

I agree, that is difficult, and the Isralies should make exceptions for that kind of thing.


So when the odd school child is shot dead by a sniper, where exactly was the terrorist he was aiming down his telescopic scope? Hidden in with the other 13 year old girls?

Could you give specific examples. There are many occations when there have been children throwing rocks & other objects at IDF positions in the West Bank.


Plus I'd like you to say that to this mans face (http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/macdonald_censored020318.ram)

Nice use of emotional argument.

Good post.

I don't really believe that IDF forces are goody-goody people, they have killed innocent civilians as many times as the terrorists and have killed prisoners and have worked to slaughter Arab and Palestinian people just as much as the terrorists in the Palestinian territories do.

Moral diffrence. The IDF do it as a result of trying to kill terrorists. They try to minimise civilians (or rather they should do. I am aware that at times they could do more) where as the Palistianinas kill civilians intentionally. If they wanted to end the occupation, they should limit their attacks to millitary targets.

Moral diffrence. The IDF do it as a result of trying to kill terrorists. They try to minimise civilians (or rather they should do. I am aware that at times they could do more) where as the Palistianinas kill civilians intentionally. If they wanted to end the occupation, they should limit their attacks to millitary targets.

So you would allow for children, civilians and prisoners to be killed brutally by IDF forces because of some Moral Difference.

This one comment man, this is utterly disqusting.

So you would allow for children, civilians and prisoners to be killed brutally by IDF forces because of some Moral Difference.

This one comment man, this is utterly disqusting.

some of the blame for palestinian civilian casualties has to be placed on the palestinian practice of setting up bomb shops, headquarters, etc in apartment buildings and the like. Under arafat, they would also send buses to palestinian schools to bring children to the front lines of their violent "demonstrations" to throw stones, etc, in the hopes that some would get caught in the crossfire and score a p.r. victory against Israel.

They signed on because they lost. The Palistianian terrorists havent stoped.

Syria lost as well, yet hasn't signed. Why do you keep trying to minimise the fact that the formerly most significant enemy of Israel in the region (Egypt) has signed a peace treaty with it? Why do you fail to mention it until somebody else points it out? And as for the Palestinians "stopping", neither has the occcupation.

Ethnic cleansing involves genocide..
Not nessecarily no. Its removing a group from an area, that group targeted by ethnicity.

This shows that Arab governments are quite happy to move their own people in greater numbers, more seriously disrupting their lives. ..

Its not comparing like with like as well you know.


There is no point in claiming Israels movement of people in 1948 was anything the Arabs dont normally tollerate..

Are you trying to imply that Arabs are to be treated by a different standard to Europeans/Israelis?



That terriory was taken as part of a defensive war. The Isralies have their right to take it. As for arguing wheteher it is internationally legal to build setlements on it, the geneva convention states that its only a probelm if it is forceablely moving people. The UN resolution 242 gives Israel the right to administer the territories under the ocupation untill there is peace. Which makes sense. If the Palistianians stop the fighting, then they will have their land. If they dont, they wont...

You are becoming confused between 1948 and 1967. The UN recognised the state of Israel in 1948. I merely point out the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out. I have not asked for a change in Israels borders however. Resolution 242 has nothing to do with that period. It refers to the 1967 war and its aftermath, and the occupied territories.

Persons have been forcibly removed to make room for settlements.

Presuming that your reading of the resolution is correct, then why, after a peace treaty has been signed with Jordan, one of the combatants in the war, from whom Arab East Jerusalem and the west Bank was seized, is Israel still in those areas?

There was little or no violence for the period 1992 to 2000. Yet still there was no withdrawal. Why?

And of course, if Palestinian violence is the reason for the occupation, why has Israel put 400,000 of its civillians in permanent residence in these areas of occupation?





Because of terrorisim. Israel will not allow a coutry to exist right on its doorstep that harbours people who will go into their country and blow up Isralie civilians. If they were interested in ending the ocupation, they would target the millitary. That isnt what has been happening...


Yet again, the occupation has caused more violence than previously existed. Not only that, its pushed the Palestinians towards Islamism, and ruined Israels previous reputation.

Judging by the reaction to targeting the military (mass destruction of housing etc), I see no "reward" for such actions.


I agree, that is difficult, and the Isralies should make exceptions for that kind of thing....

But they don't. As is often said to those who dare complain" Go to Jordan". The aim is make life as unbearable as possible.

Could you give specific examples. There are many occations when there have been children throwing rocks & other objects at IDF positions in the West Bank./QUOTE]

Time forbids it at this precise moment. But given the casualty figures from Human rights watch previously, I see no difficulty in presenting some later. How do you think gunning down stone throwing children would go down in the "midwest" of the USA, by the way.

[QUOTE=Adriatica II]
Nice use of emotional argument.

A small slice of daily life for you.

Then who were the people who resided in those lands before the Jewish people came.

They are Arab and because of distinctions from other Arab peoples, don't know if it is culture, dialect, or other they were different.

So, this is false. Absolutely false and tries to acknowledge and accept occupation of a people by another. Not going to work, because the land is not israel's it is an illegal occupation, and they are going to lose in the end.


Wait aren't Arabs predominantly muslims...and don't muslims believe in the Old Testament...did God give Moses (a jew) the land of israel? Hmm seems like the Jews have the older claim...and theirs is mandated by GOD YAHWEH ALLAH...or as I like to call him Art

Wait aren't Arabs predominantly muslims...and don't muslims believe in the Old Testament...did God give Moses (a jew) the land of israel? Hmm seems like the Jews have the older claim...and theirs is mandated by GOD YAHWEH ALLAH...or as I like to call him Art

So it says, but i do remember the little matter of wiping out the Canaanites, defeating the Philistines, etc...sounds more like military conquests than divine right.

So you would allow for children, civilians and prisoners to be killed brutally by IDF forces because of some Moral Difference.

This one comment man, this is utterly disqusting.

I dont allow them. My arguement is that they should do as much as they can to minimise civilian casuties but they cant always do that. Just because they cant always do that doesnt mean they are on the same level as the terrorists.