NationStates Jolt Archive

Peres says that Iran 'can also be wiped off the map'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added.

Peres' vehement expressions came the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly wrote to US President George W. Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Teheran, which has a US interests section, Elham told a press conference.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Monday that the Iranian president's letter to Bush could create a "new diplomatic opening," but also warned that the letter did not reflect a softening in Iran's position.

Ali Larijani refused to give details of the letter's content, but said, "Perhaps it could lead to a new diplomatic opening. It needs to be given some time."

"There is a need to wait before disclosing the content of the letter, let it make its diplomatic way," Larijani said in an interview with Turkey's NTV television.

Larijani added, however, that the "tone of the letter is not something like softening."He also warned against any US attack against Iran.

"If they have a little bit of a brain, they would not commit such a mistake," he said. "Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a weak country, it did not have a legitimate government. Iran is a powerful country."

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his US counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the US Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

First off, Why would an Israeli Leader make such a comment, when they know what happened the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his comment? Do you think there should be some general concern with that statement, or is it not threatening enough to condemn?

Second, I am rather suprised that Mr Ahmadinejad is seeking diplomatic processes now. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think he had his balls in such a twine that he had no other choice than to pursue diplomacy? Or is he just trying to buy time to get his program at full steam ahead?

Isreal has never proven to be particularly tactful. It's apparent they aren't concerned by the idea of turning Iran into a smoking crater.

Let isreal do our work for us... Thats all i can say... Theve been doing our shit for years in the region, Bout time we help

Isreal has never proven to be particularly tactful. It's apparent they aren't concerned by the idea of turning Iran into a smoking crater.

and niether is Iran with doing the same with Isreal.

Let isreal do our work for us... Thats all i can say... Theve been doing our shit for years in the region, Bout time we help


I think "we" have helped out quite a lot though.

First off, Why would an Israeli Leader make such a comment, when they know what happened the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his comment? Do you think there should be some general concern with that statement, or is it not threatening enough to condemn?
.......
Of course, it is entirely different when Israeli #1 says something like that.

Oh good! They are both retarded!

Isreal
Do they spell it differently in the other part of the world? I've always thought it was Israel.

Peres is now a dangerous lunatic who threatened his neighbour. We must stop at nothing to disarm the Israeli state of it's nuclear arsenal. Imagine what could happen with a madman like Peres in charge of nuclear lauch codes!

I think the firs thing we should do is invest the UN security council of the Israeli nuclear situation and give them one last chance at diasrming. We should threathen them with economic sanctions and the possibility of invasion.

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hypocrites ;) :p

Do they spell it differently in the other part of the world? I've always thought it was Israel.

wow a Nazi telling us how to correctly spell the name of a country that is majority jewish

:D

Do they spell it differently in the other part of the world? I've always thought it was Israel.


Yeah, it is Israel, but i didn't want to offend any for being stupid. ;)

Peres is now a dangerous lunatic who threatened his neighbour. We must stop at nothing to disarm the Israeli state of it's nuclear arsenal. Imagine what could happen with a madman like Peres in charge of nuclear lauch codes!

I think the firs thing we should do is invest the UN security council of the Israeli nuclear situation and give them one last chance at diasrming. We should threathen them with economic sanctions and the possibility of invasion.

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hippocrits ;) :p


That was my point. Now originally, I was one of those that said Iran should disarm because of those comments. But now that a leader in Israel has made similar comments, well it would be hypocritical of me to say that Iran should disarm, but not Israel.

First off, Why would an Israeli Leader make such a comment, when they know what happened the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his comment? Do you think there should be some general concern with that statement, or is it not threatening enough to condemn?

Preze: Iran CAN BE WIPED OFF the mapp too. He didn't say they should be wiped off the map. He said they can be wiped off the map

Second, I am rather suprised that Mr Ahmadinejad is seeking diplomatic processes now. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think he had his balls in such a twine that he had no other choice than to pursue diplomacy? Or is he just trying to buy time to get his program at full steam ahead?

He doesn't want to lose money.

Peres is now a dangerous lunatic who threatened his neighbour. We must stop at nothing to disarm the Israeli state of it's nuclear arsenal. Imagine what could happen with a madman like Peres in charge of nuclear lauch codes!

Threatened? He stated that the can be wiped off. He didn't make a threat.

I think the firs thing we should do is invest the UN security council of the Israeli nuclear situation and give them one last chance at diasrming. We should threathen them with economic sanctions and the possibility of invasion.

Are we talking Israel or Iran here?

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hippocrits ;) :p

Sarcasm is unbecoming.

wow a Nazi telling us how to correctly spell the name of a country that is majority jewish

:D
refering to grammar nazi? :P

refering to grammar nazi? :P

yes :D

Threatened? He stated that the can be wiped off. He didn't make a threat.
If that's how you see it, then Iran never threathened to wipe Israel off the map and the big show about their nuclear programs is total bullshit.



Are we talking Israel or Iran here?
That was my point exactly. Both should be treated the same way, either way.


Sarcasm is unbecoming.
On the contrary, it is the humour of the civilized.

If that's how you see it, then Iran never threathened to wipe Israel off the map and the big show about their nuclear programs is total bullshit.

Actually, I ran did make a threat that Israel should be destroyed. That's a threat. Perez stated the truth when he said that Iran can be destroyed as well. He was telling Iran this so that they understand the ramafications.

That was my point exactly. Both should be treated the same way, either way.

Despite the fact that Israel is always dumped on wether it is deserved or not?

On the contrary, it is the humour of the civilized.

Sarcasm.

Actually, I ran did make a threat that Israel should be destroyed. That's a threat. Perez stated the truth when he said that Iran can be destroyed as well. He was telling Iran this so that they understand the ramafications.
Nevertheless, it implies a resort to violence. Ergo, a threath.


Despite the fact that Israel is always dumped on wether it is deserved or not?
Israel is not pure, you know.


Sarcasm.
I admire your quick wit in finding that out.

Ah, sandbox politics. Always nice to see old trends never dying. Alarming that they now have nukes instead of shovels.

That was my point exactly. Both should be treated the same way, either way.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Israel is the only oasis of freedom and democracy in that region... i.e. it is different and should be treated differently.

Besides, given that it has been able to completely decimate all of its extremely unfriendly neighbors for the past 5 decades, I think we can be assured that any attack by Israel will be moderate and reactive...unfortunately.

When Peres says Iran can be wiped off the map, it's Defending the Homeland.

When Ahmadinejad says Israel can be wiped off the map, it's the Ghost of Hitler rising from the grave to feast on the flesh of Jews all over the world until he gets lulled back to sleep by Christmas carols.

Again, why is the United States giving away billions to a self-sufficient country that doesn't need its help? International Corporate Welfare at its finest.

Again, why is the United States giving away billions to a self-sufficient country that doesn't need its help? International Corporate Welfare at its finest.

Actually, it's under $500 million now.
It will continue decreasing by $120 million every year.

And I'm guessing your faulty oversimplifications about Middle Eastern politics are based on all of this "money" you feel is being wasted on Israel.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Israel is the only oasis of freedom and democracy in that region... i.e. it is different and should be treated differently.
It is an exaggeration to say that. Israel is not an oasis of freedom and someone has yet to prove that democracy is inherently the only viable form of government. Treating Israel differently only brings increased hostility and a glaring example of our collective hippocrisy.

Besides, given its history of being able to completely decimate all of its extremely unfriendly neighbors (for what, the past 5 decades?), I think we can be assured that any attack by Israel will be moderate and reactive.
Now let's look at Iran's record for the past five decades, shall we? Does it have an history of land appropriation? No. Does it have an history of tagetted killing with innocent civilians "collateral dammage"? no. In fact, Iran has been a good neighbour, when compared with Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and others. So how come they can't be trusted with nuclear power?

Nevermind the fact that I have yet to see conclusive evidence that they are developping the bomb.

Now let's look at Iran's record for the past five decades, shall we? Does it have an history of land appropriation? No. Does it have an history of tagetted killing with innocent civilians "collateral dammage"? no. In fact, Iran has been a good neighbour, when compared with Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and others. So how come they can't be trusted with nuclear power?

Nevermind the fact that I have yet to see conclusive evidence that they are developping the bomb.

I'm not going to argue about Israel's actions. I say "protective", you say "oppresive", we can both agree their actions are nothing compared to the actions of their neighbors. If you want to defend a country that has a puppet government and in actuality is a highly conservative theocracy, be my guest. Guess where I'd rather live?

...

Now let's look at Iran's record for the past five decades, shall we? Does it have an history of land appropriation? No. Does it have an history of tagetted killing with innocent civilians "collateral dammage"? no. In fact, Iran has been a good neighbour, when compared with Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and others. So how come they can't be trusted with nuclear power?
...
Actually, there were land appropriations under the Shah, the revolutionaries of 1979 made even our future KGB chairman terrified, and Iran engaged in 'targeted killing', 'collateral damage' etc. -- lobbing missiles at Baghdad in 1987-1988.

Threatened? He stated that the can be wiped off. He didn't make a threat.


a veiled threat is still a threat.....both Israel and Iran should have their toys taken away from them before they incinerate each others' barbie dolls....

First off, Why would an Israeli Leader make such a comment, when they know what happened the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his comment? Do you think there should be some general concern with that statement, or is it not threatening enough to condemn?

Second, I am rather suprised that Mr Ahmadinejad is seeking diplomatic processes now. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think he had his balls in such a twine that he had no other choice than to pursue diplomacy? Or is he just trying to buy time to get his program at full steam ahead?
he probably finally realizes the world is against him and the people who are his so called allies Russia and China may not be relied on to veto sanctions considering they haven't done so in the past.
Venezuela can't do crap for them.
And their other ally, Hamas, looks like its about to be booted from power by the Palestinian President.
It's like that cartoon from desert storm days. They had Saddam galloping westward on a camel screaming Holy War. In the next frame he running east screaming Holy Shit, with an F16 up his ass.

I think that is a good metaphor for what is happening with Iran. He thought he was the shit. So he was screaming holy war. Now he sees the world against him and he's screaming holy shit.

Nevertheless, it implies a resort to violence. Ergo, a threath.

Actually, no. It is called self-defense. Israel is actually giving advice to Iran. There is a distinct difference in what Israel said and what Iran has been saying.

Israel is not pure, you know.

Your point?

I admire your quick wit in finding that out.

thanks :D

a veiled threat is still a threat.....both Israel and Iran should have their toys taken away from them before they incinerate each others' barbie dolls....

How is advice a threat?

Actually, no. It is called self-defense. Israel is actually giving advice to Iran. There is a distinct difference in what Israel said and what Iran has been saying.

No, Israel is also threatening. But it's a different type.
One is a threat based on religious hatred and xenophobia, the other is a threat based on the ideas of preventative violence and diplomacy.

Yes, Iran has threatened Israel. Yes, Israel threatened Iran back. There's a bit of a difference though, Iran is saying that Israel SHOULD be destroyed, Israel is essentially saying that if Iran trys anything they're in for a world of hurt. There's nothing wrong with letting Iran know that if they move against Israel, Israel is going to retaliate in kind.

(Edit: Spelling)

There's a bit of a difference though, Iran is saying that Israel SHOULD be destroyed.

Really? I could have sworn he merely said 'could' also. Can you provide a link to a story that quotes him saying 'should' or 'We will...' ?

Iran calls for Israel's destruction.

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm

Really? I could have sworn he merely said 'could' also. Can you provide a link to a story that quotes him saying 'should' or 'We will...' ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

Iran calls for Israel's destruction.

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm

Glanced at it (will look in more detail later) but I still haven't seen 'We WILL do it'.

From both sides.

Nice 'warnings' but little action.... as has been going on for the past 3 decades. What makes this all the more 'urgent'?

A potential nuclear problem that might only possibly arise in 10 years? Please.

Actually, there were land appropriations under the Shah, the revolutionaries of 1979 made even our future KGB chairman terrified, and Iran engaged in 'targeted killing', 'collateral damage' etc. -- lobbing missiles at Baghdad in 1987-1988.

Land appropriations under the Shah don't count. He was a US-appointed puppet.

The revolutionaries do count, being a part of the current order but they are mitigsated by the whole 'revolution' thing...

And IIRC 1988, Iran and Iraq were AT WAR.

Actually, no. It is called self-defense. Israel is actually giving advice to Iran. There is a distinct difference in what Israel said and what Iran has been saying.



Your point?



thanks :D
And with that post you have shown yourself to be what I consider an Hippocrit. Good day to you sir.

Land appropriations under the Shah don't count. He was a US-appointed puppet.

The revolutionaries do count, being a part of the current order but they are mitigsated by the whole 'revolution' thing...

And IIRC 1988, Iran and Iraq were AT WAR.
The Shah was a monarch, and certainly he was not appointed by the US, being the eldest son of his father and the like.

Yes, in 1988 Iran and Iraq were at war, just like Israel is at war with its neighbours, just like Iraq and the US was -- in 2003. It doesn't make civilian deaths less -- or more -- abhorrent.

First off, Why would an Israeli Leader make such a comment, when they know what happened the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his comment? Do you think there should be some general concern with that statement, or is it not threatening enough to condemn?

Second, I am rather suprised that Mr Ahmadinejad is seeking diplomatic processes now. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think he had his balls in such a twine that he had no other choice than to pursue diplomacy? Or is he just trying to buy time to get his program at full steam ahead?

It's simple, really. Both countries are run by wackos. *shrug*

The Shah was a monarch, and certainly he was not appointed by the US, being the eldest son of his father and the like.

Yes, in 1988 Iran and Iraq were at war, just like Israel is at war with its neighbours, just like Iraq and the US was -- in 2003. It doesn't make civilian deaths less -- or more -- abhorrent.

I think you need to check your history mate.

As far as I know Israel has not declared war on it's neigbours. I may be wrong but there you go...

The Shah replaced the democratic government of Iran in a coup backed by the US. Some measure of popular control was taken back by the revolution but Iran's democracy has been set back a good half-century.

I think you need to check your history mate.

As far as I know Israel has not declared war on it's neigbours. I may be wrong but there you go...
Israel hasn't; his neighbours have, though. :) Presently Israel is at war with Lebanon, Syria and Iraq (I don't remember the declaration of war being revoked).

The Shah replaced the democratic government of Iran in a coup backed by the US. Some measure of popular control was taken back by the revolution but Iran's democracy has been set back a good half-century.
Meh, it was a simple struggle for power, and Mosaddeg wasn't a great democrat himself.

The Shah was a monarch, and certainly he was not appointed by the US, being the eldest son of his father and the like.



The Shah regained power from a secular democratic Goverment in a coup backed by America, Britain and France. He famously renounced his own countries oil income for 25 years in payment for this backing. You may look it up.

As far as I know Israel has not declared war on it's neigbours. I may be wrong but there you go...

Correct. Israel has peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. It is not in a state of war with Syria, Iran or the rest. Its waging an "unofficial" relatively low intensity war in the occupied territories against a bunch of badly trained and armed civillians.

Meh, it was a simple struggle for power, and Mosaddeg wasn't a great democrat himself.

So first he wasnt a US backed dictator, now it was a "simple struggle for power", (which involved one superpower and the two former chief colonial powers in the region and 25 years of oil revenue).

I might add that "wasn't a great democrat" ranks far better than 'dictatorial absolute monarch beholding to foreign powers'.

The Shah regained power from a secular democratic Goverment in a coup backed by America, Britain and France. He famously renounced his own countries oil income for 25 years in payment for this backing. You may look it up.
The accord, which was signed on 31 August 1954, gave Iran 50% of net profit of all the foreign oil companies working in Iran. You are misinformed.


Correct. Israel has peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. It is not in a state of war with Syria, Iran or the rest. Its waging an "unofficial" relatively low intensity war in the occupied territories against a bunch of badly trained and armed civillians.
Israel has no peace treaty with Lebanon, and the declarations of war, made by Syria and Lebaon in 1967, still stand.

So first he wasnt a US backed dictator, now it was a "simple struggle for power", (which involved one superpower and the two former chief colonial powers in the region and 25 years of oil revenue).

I might add that "wasn't a great democrat" ranks far better than 'dictatorial absolute monarch beholding to foreign powers'.
The Shah was a US-backed dictator, so what?

It was the Shah who appointed Mosaddeg premier, when the latter was nominated by the parliament. The struggle for power followed.

The Shah was a US-backed dictator, so what?

It was the Shah who appointed Mosaddeg premier, when the latter was nominated by the parliament. The struggle for power followed.

So he wasn't a US backed dictator, then he just got in via "a power struggle", and now he was a US backed dictator, but it doesnt matter. You should go into politics.

So he wasn't a US backed dictator, then he just got in via "a power struggle", and now he was a US backed dictator, but it doesnt matter. You should go into politics.
Would you mind to point to my alleged post denying the Shah being a US-backed dictator?

He got in via his father's abdication in 1941. Know the history.

And what's the relevance of him being a US-backed dictator?

The Shah was a monarch, and certainly he was not appointed by the US, being the eldest son of his father and the like.

The exact quote above. The relevance being that you said that he was not appointed by the US.

The Shah was a monarch, and certainly he was not appointed by the US, being the eldest son of his father and the like.

The exact quote above. The relevance being that you said that he was not appointed by the US.
Yes, he was not appointed Shah by the US. He ascended the throne upon his father's abdication in 1941. That's a fact. There is a difference between 'appointment' and 'backing', isn't it?

Yes, he was not appointed Shah by the US. He ascended the throne upon his father's abdication in 1941. That's a fact.

He wasn't called Fred by the US either. Its what he did when they put him back in power thats the issue. No US/Brit/French coup, no Shah in power. And without power he could call himself The-Iranian-formerly-known as-the-Shah-Fred and nobody would care.

Yes, he was not appointed Shah by the US. He ascended the throne upon his father's abdication in 1941. That's a fact. There is a difference between 'appointment' and 'backing', isn't it?

If a superpower and two largeish nations back you against the locals, its an appointment. Spare me the semantics.

He wasn't called Fred by the US either. Its what he did when they put him back in power thats the issue. No US/Brit/French coup, no Shah in power. And without power he could call himself The-Iranian-formerly-known as-the-Shah-Fred and nobody would care.
He was not deposed then, still being the Iranian monarch -- you may check the history books if you don't believe me. The US helped him to return to executive power.

Dear Nodinia, you have just made several incorrect statements regarding the standing declarations of war against Israel, the terms of 1954 oil accord and the legal status of Iranian monarch in 1953. I advise you to study this interesting historical period in detail, abjuring the evergreen buzzword ('democracy', that is) and the loaded terms. It is as if I'm reading some speech by George W.

If a superpower and two largeish nations back you against the locals, its an appointment. Spare me the semantics.
I won't. :) And there were plenty of support for the Shah in Iran -- there was no armed intervention, don't you remember? BTW. how can you appoint someone a monarch if he is a monarch already?

He was not deposed then, still being the Iranian monarch -- you may check the history books if you don't believe me. The US helped him to return to executive power.

Dear Nodinia, you have just made several incorrect statements regarding the standing declarations of war against Israel, the terms of 1954 oil accord and the legal status of Iranian monarch in 1953. I advise you to study this interesting historical period in detail, abjuring the evergreen buzzword ('democracy', that is) and the loaded terms. It is as if I'm reading some speech by George W.

"The Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978 led to a negotiated peace between those two nations, signed in Washington DC on March 26, 1979, the first between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors."
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_egypt_israel_peace.php

"On October 26, 1994 Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty at Wadi Araba, only the second such agreement, after the Israel-Egypt treaty of 1978, between Israel and its Arab neighbors."

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_jordan_treaty.php

You are correct however in regard to there being no official peace with Lebanon. I doubt somehow that Israel is overly worried.

I won't. :) And there were plenty of support for the Shah in Iran -- there was no armed intervention, don't you remember? BTW. how can you appoint someone a monarch if he is a monarch already?

By giving him the power to sit on his throne, as opposed to shit on the "throne".

I advise you to study this interesting historical period in detail, abjuring the evergreen buzzword ('democracy', that is) and the loaded terms. It is as if I'm reading some speech by George W.

O thats me. God, Freedom, democracy and apple-pie.

"The Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978 led to a negotiated peace between those two nations, signed in Washington DC on March 26, 1979, the first between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors."
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_egypt_israel_peace.php

"On October 26, 1994 Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty at Wadi Araba, only the second such agreement, after the Israel-Egypt treaty of 1978, between Israel and its Arab neighbors."

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_jordan_treaty.php

You are correct however in regard to there being no official peace with Lebanon. I doubt somehow that Israel is overly worried.
I haven't denied the existence of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Regarding Lebanon... you've been wrong. Regarding Syria, you've been wrong. The modern history of the Middle East is very complicated, and it certainly merits careful study.

By giving him the power to sit on his throne, as opposed to shit on the "throne".
Sorry?

O thats me. God, Freedom, democracy and apple-pie.
Sounds familiar. :D

By the way, I've just read that it was Mosaddeg's nephew who ordered the Tehran police to come over to the Shah's side. Very interesting.

As far as I know, Syria is still officially at war with Israel. I have no clue regarding Lebanon.

That was my point. Now originally, I was one of those that said Iran should disarm because of those comments. But now that a leader in Israel has made similar comments, well it would be hypocritical of me to say that Iran should disarm, but not Israel.
Bull-fucking-shit. Israel said such to point out the consequences of attempting anything on Iran's part. Israel already has nukes. It hasn't used them. Unless someone attacks them, they won't.

Oh good! They are both retarded!



Wheeeeeeeeeeeee !!!! now we are talking ! Let the Diplomacy begin !!!


That whole region should be turned into a smoking crater . Give it an enema .

I
Regarding Lebanon... you've been wrong. Regarding Syria, you've been wrong. The modern history of the Middle East is very complicated, and it certainly merits careful study.

In which case I will be sure to remember that a de facto cease-fire does not equate to a formal agreement and you can turn your attention to US backed regimes.

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added


That's the bit I don't necessarily agree with

wow a Nazi telling us how to correctly spell the name of a country that is majority jewish

:D

tw*t - completely inappropriate

Bull-fucking-shit. Israel said such to point out the consequences of attempting anything on Iran's part. Israel already has nukes. It hasn't used them. Unless someone attacks them, they won't.
Hypocrit.
Ahmadinejad makes the same statement. When he does it he is teh evil and when Peres does it, you try to downplay it.

Bull-fucking-shit. Israel said such to point out the consequences of attempting anything on Iran's part. Israel already has nukes. It hasn't used them. Unless someone attacks them, they won't.
in that case let iran build theirs and maybe they wont use them either. :gundge: hahaha what? israel has nukes so they can threaten who they want. what?

Threatened? He stated that the can be wiped off. He didn't make a threat.

You should remember, Corneliu, that I can beat the shit out of you and take your wallet.

In which case I will be sure to remember that a de facto cease-fire does not equate to a formal agreement and you can turn your attention to US backed regimes.
Why? Are you interested in the US-backed regimes only? I am not. ;)

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added


That's the bit I don't necessarily agree with

Why?

Hypocrit.
Ahmadinejad makes the same statement. When he does it he is teh evil and when Peres does it, you try to downplay it.

There's a big difference between the words should be and can be.

You should remember, Corneliu, that I can beat the shit out of you and take your wallet.

and you can have a few broken ribs while you attempt it.

ok, gotta make replies quick.

1st. israel is not the only democratic nation in the middle east, lebanon is also a democracy.

2nd. israel was the inistigator of the six-day war, so it has declared war on other nations. It also occupied lebanon from 1983-2002, and bombed the osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. If you had a nation that geographically close to you take actions such as bomb your facilities while you are not at war, that nation is a SERIOUS threat. (ever wondered why arabs hate israel?)

3rd. why does it matter if the palestinians are poorly armed and trained? do u expect them to be able to build a large, developed army while under occupation?

Israel feels that all arabic countries have to accept the fact that they can be attacked by israel at anytime if it feels it must do so for its own security. Well Israel, if u want to be secure, keep the security inside ur own borders.

ok, gotta make replies quick.

1st. israel is not the only democratic nation in the middle east, lebanon is also a democracy.

OH brother. If you firmly believe that then I have a desert for sale in China.

2nd. israel was the inistigator of the six-day war, so it has declared war on other nations.

A pre-emptive measure because their enemies were going to jump them again.

It also occupied lebanon from 1983-2002, and bombed the osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981.

And its a good thing they did bomb that nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

If you had a nation that geographically close to you take actions such as bomb your facilities while you are not at war, that nation is a SERIOUS threat. (ever wondered why arabs hate israel?)

So where was the threat in 1948? They didn't do nothing to the arabs then. What about the 2nd war they fought? They didn't start that one either. The third war they did because they were going to get attacked again. And yet, Israel still wants peace with their neighbors.

3rd. why does it matter if the palestinians are poorly armed and trained? do u expect them to be able to build a large, developed army while under occupation?

Why aren't the other arabs helping the Palestinians? After all, they are the ones responsible for the Palestinian Refugee problem.

Israel feels that all arabic countries have to accept the fact that they can be attacked by israel at anytime if it feels it must do so for its own security. Well Israel, if u want to be secure, keep the security inside ur own borders.

That's all they want. However they are surrounded by people who have attacked them in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if given the opportunity.

OH brother. If you firmly believe that then I have a desert for sale in China.

Well, I do believe the Palestinian Territories are a democracy now ;)


Why aren't the other arabs helping the Palestinians? After all, they are the ones responsible for the Palestinian Refugee problem.
Well, are the inital explusion, yes.



That's all they want. However they are surrounded by people who have attacked them in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if given the opportunity.

Well, if I was neighboured by a state that wasn't exactly friendly towards my race and was the only one with nuclear weapons, I'd be pretty quick in trying to level the playing field too. Give em both nuclear power and let them knock each other out.

Hypocrit.
Ahmadinejad makes the same statement. When he does it he is teh evil and when Peres does it, you try to downplay it.
Did you mean hypocrite (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=hypocrite&spell=1)?

And it is by no means the same thing. If it was the same thing then israel would have made the 'threat' such as it was long ago. All Peres said was that Iran also could be wiped off the map. He did not say it would. Allowing a crazy fucker who multiple times has threatened to wipe your country off the map to get nukes is just fucking stupid.

...

Well, if I was neighboured by a state that wasn't exactly friendly towards my race and was the only one with nuclear weapons, I'd be pretty quick in trying to level the playing field too. Give em both nuclear power and let them knock each other out.
Israel and Iran aren't neighbours and I'm not sure that Israel is full of erm... 'anti-Persian racists' given that there was no Irano-Israeli wars.

Israel and Iran aren't neighbours and I'm not sure that Israel is full of erm... 'anti-Persian racists' given that there was no Irano-Israeli wars.

Well, its close enough in this modern era ;)

Oh I don't mean to insinuate that the Israeli population is by any means 'racist' towards the Iranians and vice versa. Their leaderships are the problem.

Well, its close enough in this modern era ;)

Oh I don't mean to insinuate that the Israeli population is by any means 'racist' towards the Iranians and vice versa. Their leaderships are the problem.
Well, is it? Do those Jews intend to conquer Iran? It doesn't seem so. Iran has no reason to be afraid of Israeli invasion.

The Israeli government is composed of anti-Persian racists? How's that?

Well, is it? Do those Jews intend to conquer Iran? It doesn't seem so. Iran has no reason to be afraid of Israeli invasion.

The Israeli government is composed of anti-Persian racists? How's that?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said either side was racist. I said 'their leaderships are the problem', and they are.

I would warrant the average daily Iranian and Israeli citizen couldn't care less about the other.

Their leaders are now both blustering and this sort of braggadocio only creates worse problems.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said either side was racist. I said 'their leaderships are the problem', and they are.

Well, that's what you said.



Well, if I was neighboured by a state that wasn't exactly friendly towards my race and was the only one with nuclear weapons, I'd be pretty quick in trying to level the playing field too. ...

I've thought that 'a state that wasn't exactly friendy towards my race' can be construed as a 'racist side'. Sorry if I am mistaken.

The leaderships are certainly a problem. But then again, that's a usual problem.


I would warrant the average daily Iranian and Israeli citizen couldn't care less about the other.

Their leaders are now both blustering and this sort of braggadocio only creates worse problems.
Quite so.

I've thought that 'a state that wasn't exactly friendy towards my race' can be construed as a 'racist side'. Sorry if I am mistaken.
If I wanted to say 'Israel/Iran are racist towards...', then I would have done so- bluntly too. ;)

Israel hasn't exactly had the easiest of times in the region for the last... ohhh.... half century. And in turn they haven't treated their neighbours the best either. One does not excuse the other.

Again, racism is too strong a term.

If I wanted to say 'Israel/Iran are racist towards...', then I would have done so- bluntly too. ;)

Israel hasn't exactly had the easiest of times in the region for the last... ohhh.... half century. And in turn they haven't treated their neighbours the best either. One does not excuse the other.

Again, racism is too strong a term.
Oh, I see. I agree with you. My point is, Israel hasn't done anything to Iran yet; Tehran, however, has been supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon for a long time.

Neither of the states is perfect, but I must confess that I'm pro-Israeli (several friends and acquaintances there etc.)

Oh, I see. I agree with you. My point is, Israel hasn't done anything to Iran yet; Tehran, however, has been supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon for a long time.
True, hence you see the tenuous connection between the two, not neccessarily outright conflageration- but deep rooted animosity (on a high political level- again I severely doubt the ordinary citizen of either cares too much)

Hopfully they can both stop with the dick swingin' soon.


Neither of the states is perfect, but I must confess that I'm pro-Israeli (several friends and acquaintances there etc.)

Nothing wrong in that, I can totally respect and understand that position.

I would be nominally pro Palestinian (right for self determination et al) in so much as I feel both people are idiots arguing over control over a scrap of land where both could happily live together.

I would be anti-IDF (family experiences), not anti-Israeli, not even anti- Israeli govt., and not anti-Jewish.

...

Nothing wrong in that, I can totally respect and understand that position.

I would be nominally pro Palestinian (right for self determination et al) in so much as I feel both people are idiots arguing over control over a scrap of land where both could happily live together.

I would be anti-IDF (family experiences), not anti-Israeli, not even anti- Israeli govt., and not anti-Jewish.
Thanks.

What amazes me most is the fact that there was no Palestinian state set up between 1948 and 1967, when Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan respectively. If only Nasser had allowed the creation of an independent Arab state in Gaza Strip then... But no, the Arab 'brothers' didn't care.

A big problem that is often ignored in Israeli/Palestinian discussions is the fact that One of Islams holiest sites, the Dome of the Rock, and one of Ireal's holiest sites, the Temple of David, lie almost directly on top of one another in Jerusalem and both are held so sacred as to require the followers of their respective religions to restrict access to the sites. The restoration of the Temple of David required significant damage to the Dome of the Rock. Also, as stated, it is in Jerusalem, currently part of the Jewish State. Muslims are not happy about that and probably never will be.

This is not just a question of them holding hands and singing their version of "This land is your land." Resources and space are not all that is at issue.

More on that issue:

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/israel/jerusalem.html

Funny they call it, "Places of Peace and Wonder" at teh top of the page and then go on to say it is the site of 3,000 years of religious conflict.

OH brother. If you firmly believe that then I have a desert for sale in China..

The US accepted the last elections as free and fair, as did the EU. Perhaps you should try to flog it to Bush.


A pre-emptive measure because their enemies were going to jump them again.
..

Not according to some of those involved.


So where was the threat in 1948? They didn't do nothing to the arabs then. What about the 2nd war they fought? They didn't start that one either. The third war they did because they were going to get attacked again. And yet, Israel still wants peace with their neighbors...

The third war was the result of the continued occupation of areas captured in 1967.


Why aren't the other arabs helping the Palestinians? After all, they are the ones responsible for the Palestinian Refugee problem....

But they aren't. The refugees were created by a deliberate policy emanating from some elements within the Haggannah, the more extreme groups and the political leadership, including Ben Gurion. As has been pointed out to you in detail before.


That's all they want. However they are surrounded by people who have attacked them in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if given the opportunity.

If that was what they wanted, then why are they continuing to build homes in occupied territory and attempting to physcally annex Arab East Jerusalem by surrounding it with settlements? Surely thats only counterproductive at this stage.

Iran can't be wiped off the map. It's too big.

The US accepted the last elections as free and fair, as did the EU. Perhaps you should try to flog it to Bush.

Which elections are you talking about?

Not according to some of those involved.

Some! I love that. Yea, they were lining up to attack Israel. If they weren't, Israel would not have attacked.

The third war was the result of the continued occupation of areas captured in 1967.

You may believe that if you wish.

But they aren't. The refugees were created by a deliberate policy emanating from some elements within the Haggannah, the more extreme groups and the political leadership, including Ben Gurion. As has been pointed out to you in detail before.

I have a beach for sale in Florida if you want to believe this. Some of it I'll grant but the arab world told the Palestinians to get out. Even Syria admitted that they were responsible for the Refugee problem.

If that was what they wanted, then why are they continuing to build homes in occupied territory and attempting to physcally annex Arab East Jerusalem by surrounding it with settlements? Surely thats only counterproductive at this stage.

Explain the pullouts then! Israel does want peace and are committed to the peace process.

Iran can't be wiped off the map. It's too big.

Apparently some does not realize the power of nuclear weapons :D

And when a bunch of iranians are vaporized into atomic particles and actually become part of your soup...well then maybe just maybe..you'll start thinking again about how bad nukes are for ALL of us . We dont need no more friggin nukes or countries with nukes we need less nukes in less countries until we have no more nukes .

The cold war ended ...no more monollithic entity threatens to invade and counquer the free or even the unfree world ...So get rid of the damm things .

we can kill each other just as well with conventional weapons ..with less consequences for those on the sidelines .

For example ..India and Pakistan...who wants to be around when that goes to hell ? THATS gonna make a big damm cloud .

I hate curry .

and niether is Iran with doing the same with Isreal.
The entire region would have little to no qualms about this happening. The only problem is that they have to make it happen.

A big problem that is often ignored in Israeli/Palestinian discussions is the fact that One of Islams holiest sites, the Dome of the Rock, and one of Ireal's holiest sites, the Temple of David, lie almost directly on top of one another in Jerusalem and both are held so sacred as to require the followers of their respective religions to restrict access to the sites. The restoration of the Temple of David required significant damage to the Dome of the Rock. Also, as stated, it is in Jerusalem, currently part of the Jewish State. Muslims are not happy about that and probably never will be.
Tough beans. Israel has ensured free access to all religious sites, something which Jordan did not do when it occupied East Jerusalem, Judea & Samaria.

Thanks.

What amazes me most is the fact that there was no Palestinian state set up between 1948 and 1967, when Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan respectively. If only Nasser had allowed the creation of an independent Arab state in Gaza Strip then... But no, the Arab 'brothers' didn't care.
There's nothing amazing about it; no Arab leaders give a damn about the Palestinians (indeed, the only Arab nation which will grant citizenship to Palestinian immigrants is Jordan -- and the only other country which will is the United States) -- they're nothing more than a club to smack Israel with, and to drum up anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli public sentiment.


2nd. israel was the inistigator of the six-day war, so it has declared war on other nations.

That's a lie. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were only days away from invading Israel when the Israelis launched a preemptive strike.


It also occupied lebanon from 1983-2002,

1982-2000, in response to numerous terrorist attacks launched from southern Lebanon, in which the governments of Lebanon, Syria and other Muslim nations were complicit.


and bombed the osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981.

Thank God that they did.


If you had a nation that geographically close to you take actions such as bomb your facilities while you are not at war,

That's simply false. Israel was, at the time, still at war with Iraq.

The third war was the result of the continued occupation of areas captured in 1967.
Captured in an unprovoked defensive war!

2nd. israel was the inistigator of the six-day war, so it has declared war on other nations.That's a lie. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were only days away from invading Israel when the Israelis launched a preemptive strike.

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself there?

Israel launching a preemptive strike WAS the start of the six-day war.

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself there?

Israel launching a preemptive strike WAS the start of the six-day war.

Even though they were going to get jumped first. So what we are both saying is true. Israel wouldn't have attacked if it was for the arab military build up to launch an attack against Israel. How about we say that both sides were responsible?

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself there?

Israel launching a preemptive strike WAS the start of the six-day war.


wasn't the start really from the mortars being launched from Jordan on to israeli land? I think so.

wasn't the start really from the mortars being launched from Jordan on to israeli land? I think so.

Linky dink to this piece of historical information please.

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself there?

Israel launching a preemptive strike WAS the start of the six-day war.
I didn't contract myself; the claim was made that "Israel was the instigator of the Six-Day War", which is not true. The war was instigated by the Arab intent to invade Israel, to which Israel was responding.

Linky dink to this piece of historical information please.
I haven't heard about the mortar attack from the territory if Jordan in 1967... However, one has to admit that the actions of Israel in June 1967 more or less complied with Webster's principles of preemptive self-defence (i.e. necessity of that self-defence was instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation), which were (and are) accepted as a part of customary international law.

I didn't contract myself; the claim was made that "Israel was the instigator of the Six-Day War", which is not true. The war was instigated by the Arab intent to invade Israel, to which Israel was responding.
Well, if you want to play that game, you can keep back tracking until say, 1948 and the foundation of the State itself, and that 'instigated' the whole thing. :rolleyes:

But we're not going to.

That is like saying Iraq actually started the Third Gulf War (2003)

I haven't heard about the mortar attack from the territory if Jordan in 1967... However, one has to admit that the actions of Israel in June 1967 more or less complied with Webster's principles of preemptive self-defence (i.e. necessity of that self-defence was instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation), which were (and are) accepted as a part of customary international law.

Oh, I agree that it fits a definiton of pre-emption. I just don't agree with pre-emption as a legal standing for war.

I haven't heard about the mortar attack from the territory if Jordan in 1967... However, one has to admit that the actions of Israel in June 1967 more or less complied with Webster's principles of preemptive self-defence (i.e. necessity of that self-defence was instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation), which were (and are) accepted as a part of customary international law.

Well said my friend :)

Oh, I agree that it fits a definiton of pre-emption. I just don't agree with pre-emption as a legal standing for war.

According to Customary International law it is.

According to Customary International law it is.
What is international law? ;)

With the regular flouting of it these days- nothing apparently.

Oh, I agree that it fits a definiton of pre-emption. I just don't agree with pre-emption as a legal standing for war.
Nevertheless pre-emptive self-defence is a part of international law which was defined in the 1830s; the UN Charter refers to self-defence in Article 51 as well.

What is international law? ;)

With the regular flouting of it these days- nothing apparently.
Every day people flout laws that prohibit murder, rape, arson, armed robbery etc. Are those laws nothing, too? I beg to differ.

Nevertheless pre-emptive self-defence is a part of international law which was defined in the 1830s; the UN Charter refers to self-defence in Article 51 as well.

True but doesn't International law prohibit war for the aggrandissment of one's state?

Did the state of Israel not gain territory in this war and continues to hold on to some today?

Is that not flouting international law?

*shrug*

Every day people flout laws that prohibit murder, rape, arson, armed robbery etc. Are those laws nothing, too? I beg to differ.
International is and always has been wishy washy.

You are talking about internal state laws. Big difference.

In one you can be held accountable for your actions, increasingly so in the other, you are not.

True but doesn't International law prohibit war for the aggrandissment of one's state?

Did the state of Israel not gain territory in this war and continues to hold on to some today?

Is that not flouting international law?

*shrug*
'It seems crazy but you must believe...' There exists a certain right in international law that is called 'right of conquest'. It is a bit erm... unpopular in these times, but... ;)

I didn't contract myself; the claim was made that "Israel was the instigator of the Six-Day War", which is not true. The war was instigated by the Arab intent to invade Israel, to which Israel was responding.
In general, we declare the sides who attacks first as the instigator. Who attacked first? I don't care about the justification, claim or other bullshit used to validate the attack. Israel attacked first. Period. End of story. They started it.

If we are looking into the why of the war, that we might as well ask what event X caused the arab countries to amass on the frontier, then examine why this event X happened: the cause Y. Then see why the cause Y came to pass, and so on and so forth.

So when you say that Israel was not the instigator of the six-days war, then in the same sentence say that they launched a pre-emptive strike, you are contradicting yourself.

'It seems crazy but you must believe...' There exists a certain right in international law that is called 'right of conquest'. It is a bit erm... unpopular in these times, but... ;)

;) Not anymore I think.

International is and always has been wishy washy.

You are talking about internal state laws. Big difference.

In one you can be held accountable for your actions, increasingly so in the other, you are not.
Of course not! I, for example, am a citizen of Russia, where severity of it laws is mitigated by the fact that keeping within the law is not obligatory. :cool: Seriously though, one may be held accountable in either... and sometimes may not.

Of course not! I, for example, is a citizen of Russia, where severity of it laws is mitigated by the fact that keeping within the law is not obligatory. :cool:
:D Fair enough!

Seriously though, one may be held accountable in either... and sometimes may not.

Maybe, but International law is still not as codified as National law. A state can choose not to obey and (depending on its power status) not be disciplined.

;) Not anymore I think.
Hm... ;)

:D Fair enough!



Maybe, but International law is still not as codified as National law. A state can choose not to obey and (depending on its power status) not be disciplined.

Actually, International law is codified through various treaties and alliances

Actually, International law is codified through various treaties and alliances
Yes I know. And the beauty about that is... treaties and alliances change all to easily and readily. I would never consider international alliances and treaties a solid basis for law.

Thereby screwing up the precedents used for Int'l laws, it allows those that are powerful enough to get away with flouting them.

...
Maybe, but International law is still not as codified as National law. A state can choose not to obey and (depending on its power status) not be disciplined.
Well, maybe not AS codified. Nevertheless, a powerful individual can ignore criminal law as well and, having obtained the services of the best lawyers... well, he is almost as safe from disciplinary action as any permanent UNSC member state is!

Well, maybe not AS codified. Nevertheless, a powerful individual can ignore criminal law as well and, having obtained the services of the best lawyers... well, he is almost as safe from disciplinary action as any permanent UNSC member state is!

Agreed.

I just feel it occurs with increasing regularity on the international stage- setting bad examples for future big boys (China, India, maybe Brazil). They can point and say "Hey, you got away with it then, who are you to tell us now that we are strong, that we can't do the same?"

Agreed.

I just feel it occurs with increasing regularity on the international stage- setting bad examples for future big boys (China, India, maybe Brazil). They can point and say "Hey, you got away with it then, who are you to tell us now that we are strong, that we can't do the same?"
True, ah true, and overtrue...

hmm maybe i read the mortar attacks from jordan, persay, for another war...i have a book on it at home..i could have sworn it was on the 6 day war...anyways i found some info here

On May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometres from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world."[citation needed]

At the same time, several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, also began mobilizing their armed forces.

On the evening of 1 June minister of defence Moshe Dayan called Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and the GOC, Southern Command Brigadier General Yeshayahu Gavish to present plans to be implemented against Egypt. Rabin had formulated a plan in which Southern Command would fight its way to the Gaza Strip and then hold the territory and its people hostage until Egypt agreed to reopen the Straits of Tiran while Gavish had a more comprehensive plan that called for the destruction of Egyptian forces in the Sinai. Rabin favored Gavish's plan, which was then endorsed by Dayan with the caution that a simultaneous offensive against Syria should be avoided.[2]


On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.


That was from wiki

here is some stuff from www.jerusalemarchives.org

At 1200 hours Narkis asks the Jerusalem command if Jordanians have been sighted at Government House because Jordanian radio at 1100 claimed that the UN Headquarters has been captured. Evidently working on standard time rather than daylight savings, the Jordanian invasion of Government house begins at 1200 hours while UN personnel are having lunch. The Egyptian commander, General Riyadh, has made the decision for Jordan to join the war.

This is the first case of Jordanian radio announcing success before a planned attack and thereby alerting Israel. From positions around the Government House, the Arab Legion begins mortar fire on Ramat Rachel, Allenby Camp, and the Jewish half of Abu Tor.

A Jerusalem Brigade position reports seeing Jordanian troops at the perimeter fence on the Israeli side.

At the same hour, Jordan's air force attacks the city of Netanya. Between 1230 and 1400 the Israeli Air Force destroys Jordan's main airfields, control towers and fighter planes.

At 1400 Amman radio reports that Mount Scopus has been captured by the Arab Legion – the second warning has been given. Emergency plans are drawn for an offensive war in Jerusalem. The Harel Armored Brigade is to secure the northern access to the city to prevent reinforcements from linking up with forces in the southern part.

At 1430 it is decided to send a battalion of General Mordecai (Mota) Gur's paratroopers to fight in Jerusalem. They have been training to fight in the Sinai Desert against Egypt. Many paratroopers are disappointed that they will not parachute into the desert, but travel instead by bus to Jerusalem where there is no war.

Mortar shells falling on the highway along the Kastel slow the flow of reinforcements to Jerusalem.

Troop carriers and tanks begin entering the city. The population turns out to great them and call words of encouragement: "God bless you!" – "Strength and Courage!" – "Give it to them!"

In the north of city, close to the Sanhedrin neighborhood and Bayit Fagi a lone Israeli position faces Ammunition Hill (Givat HaTachmoshet) – the most threatening and strongest of all Jordanian positions.


Ha i see mortar attacks there :D Bolding mine of course..some interesting things I found

Which elections are you talking about?.

The ones which elected Hamas. In the Palestinian territories which you mocked Psychotic for describing as "democratic". Obviously you don't have a problem with the unmandated Israeli presence......


Some! I love that. Yea, they were lining up to attack Israel. If they weren't, Israel would not have attacked.?.

"Never mind that [when asked that Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights]. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]." (Moshe Dayan, published posthumously in Yediot Ahronot).


I have a beach for sale in Florida if you want to believe this. Some of it I'll grant but the arab world told the Palestinians to get out. Even Syria admitted that they were responsible for the Refugee problem..?.

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," (David Ben Gurion 1948)


Explain the pullouts then! Israel does want peace and are committed to the peace process.

30,000 troops were required to secure 8000 settlers in Gaza. It was seen as unviable and that it was better to concentrate resources on the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem


According to Customary International law it is..

Bit much to get justification from the kind of law that makes all settlements illegal.


There exists a certain right in international law that is called 'right of conquest'. It is a bit erm... unpopular in these times, but..

But heres the UN resolution on the subject. I've placed the relevant section in bold.

"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,

Affirms that the fulfillment 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:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
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;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible."

hmm maybe i read the mortar attacks from jordan, persay, for another war...i have a book on it at home..i could have sworn it was on the 6 day war...anyways i found some info here


That was from wiki

here is some stuff from www.jerusalemarchives.org



Ha i see mortar attacks there :D Bolding mine of course..some interesting things I found
The war began several hour earlier than that, with Israel attacking Egypt. Jordan decided to enter the fray... well, yes, Jordan attacked Israel first, but the war was already ongoing.

...


But heres the UN resolution on the subject. I've placed the relevant section in bold.

"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 ...
Of course! Invoking the right of conquest would've been a PR disaster for Israel.

The ones which elected Hamas. In the Palestinian territories which you mocked Psychotic for describing as "democratic". Obviously you don't have a problem with the unmandated Israeli presence......

Umm yea... where did I say that Hamas's election was legit?

*snip*

History says otherwise.


*snip*

Its so nice that you can throw quotes around however, SYRIA ADMITTED THAT THEY TOLD THEM TO LEAVE AND DID NOTHING!!!

30,000 troops were required to secure 8000 settlers in Gaza. It was seen as unviable and that it was better to concentrate resources on the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem

Fact remains though that Israel is committed to the peace process.

Of course! Invoking the right of conquest would've been a PR disaster for Israel.
And now they have to live with the consequences of skirting the PR disaster then. :D

...

30,000 troops were required to secure 8000 settlers in Gaza. It was seen as unviable and that it was better to concentrate resources on the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem
...
I gather that Nasser and King Hussein regarded the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank viable between 1948 and 1967. No one even asked them to return the occupied territories to Palestinians. Why?

And now they have to live with the consequences of skirting the PR disaster then. :D
Yeah. :)

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hippocrits ;) :p
Nope because no one is saying that a stable democracy shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons and be threatening to use them in the event of a true lunatic in an enemy country from acquiring them. Im not being hypocritical, you are over-generalizing.

Nope because no one is saying that a stable democracy shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons and be threatening to use them in the event of a true lunatic in an enemy country from acquiring them. Im not being hypocritical, you are over-generalizing.
Iran has a democratically elected government. It has been as stable as Israel for the past 30 years or so. Now, Israel has threathened them with nuclear weapons in what I can only call lunacy.

So I see the two as eerily similar. So what, pray tell, is the difference between the two other than the religion they follow?

Iran has a democratically elected government. It has been as stable as Israel for the past 30 years or so. Now, Israel has threathened them with nuclear weapons in what I can only call lunacy.

So I see the two as eerily similar. So what, pray tell, is the difference between the two other than the religion they follow?
Well, the top level of Iranian government is not democratically elected at all (Israel has no Chief Rabbi as a Supreme Leader), Iran has not been stable for the past 30 years at all (maybe 20), and I personally abhor the disregard of Iranian government for human rights etc (all those stonings and hangings for adultery, fornication and homosexualism... Iran is not a pretty place to live).

There exists a huge difference between those two states which, however, doesn't excuse the threats that have been made.

[Olantia]
Of course! Invoking the right of conquest would've been a PR disaster for Israel.[/QUOTE]

As world opinion was largely pro-Israeli at this period, its unlikely to have had the same effect as today.

However, I fail to see why the UN specifically state the inadmissability of territorial conquest if such a right did exist. Likewise the Geneva convention bars the colonisation of occupied territory by a state and has done since before 1967. If one state can summarily annex all or part of another, I also don't understand why (for instance Saddam) didn't invoke it to stave off American invasion after he went into Kuwait.

[Corneliu]Its so nice that you can throw quotes around however, SYRIA ADMITTED THAT THEY TOLD THEM TO LEAVE AND DID NOTHING!!!.[/QUOTE]

I "throw" quotes, names, dates and events around as much as possible, as I believe in using the small (but as far as I'm aware correct) knowledge I have to show why I say what I say, as oppossed to just talking through my arse. Should you wish to indulge in some less reality based rantings, I suggest that you are in the wrong sand pit with the wrong person.

For instance, theres a wide range of quotes for many figures concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians, both before during and after, both general and regarding specific incidents and places. Theres also documentation and records from same, and many of the organisations involved.

Why don't you join the fun by providing the exact quote refering to the "Syrian" business?

[Corneliu]
Fact remains though that Israel is committed to the peace process.!!!.[/QUOTE]

No, Israel remains commiited to annexation by building, while using the idea that theres a process to put pressure on the Palestinians. There is no "peace process". Israel does what it wants, with minimum intereference from the US, on a unilateral basis. Should the Palestinians lash out, it justifies more open moves by Israel and damages support for the Palestinians. If they do nothing, the concrete keeps pouring on, largely unremarked by the outside world. Its the benefits of a friend with a veto.

[Olantia]
Of course! Invoking the right of conquest would've been a PR disaster for Israel.

As world opinion was largely pro-Israeli at this period, its unlikely to have had the same effect as today.

However, I fail to see why the UN specifically state the inadmissability of territorial conquest if such a right did exist. Likewise the Geneva convention bars the colonisation of occupied territory by a state and has done since before 1967. If one state can summarily annex all or part of another, I also don't understand why (for instance Saddam) didn't invoke it to stave off American invasion after he went into Kuwait.
...[/QUOTE]
Because this right is out of fashion. Its vestiges exist, for example, in English common law, where sovereign can, in theory, annex or cede territory at will. That's understandable given that William the Conqueror ascended the English throne owing in part to the right of conquest...

The ones which elected Hamas. In the Palestinian territories which you mocked Psychotic for describing as "democratic". Obviously you don't have a problem with the unmandated Israeli presence......



"Never mind that [when asked that Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights]. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]." (Moshe Dayan, published posthumously in Yediot Ahronot).



"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," (David Ben Gurion 1948)



30,000 troops were required to secure 8000 settlers in Gaza. It was seen as unviable and that it was better to concentrate resources on the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem



Bit much to get justification from the kind of law that makes all settlements illegal.



But heres the UN resolution on the subject. I've placed the relevant section in bold.

"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,

Affirms that the fulfillment 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:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
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;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible."




Wow a well reasoned argument ...I am sorry you fail to meet the standards of the forums and must include a rant or cry of outrage ...or at least a baldfaced lie ...or even better some funny insults..this post is just not acceptable as it stands .

But I salute you for your effort . Even if I tend to be more in support of Israel on most things. The Palestinians always seem to be blowing things up when they should be negotiating a solution ...and every time I take their side and root for them a bunch of old jews in a bus or a group of school kids get vaporized...I must be bad luck . They have been manipulated by all sides at times to do this... but as a result generations of Palestinian youth have been taught that the only true victory is the removal of Israel and Israelis from the face of the Earth....thats a tough act to suddenly moderate.
And Israel will not be removed by force. It is not realistic . So what now ?

How many more years of suicide bombers and retaliation ? When does the " puppet " cut the strings ?

We are all at fault in some way or another ( western nations - the UN - the cold war -Arab politics- etc. ) not to mention The Israelis and the Palestinians.

The thing now is to stop pointing fingers and fix it .

Unless your idea of fun is to sit back with some pop corn and watch it .

Well, if you want to play that game, you can keep back tracking until say, 1948 and the foundation of the State itself, and that 'instigated' the whole thing. :rolleyes:

But we're not going to.

That is like saying Iraq actually started the Third Gulf War (2003)
Oh, so Israel should have waited to be attacked, which would have resulted in a much longer war, and tens of thousands of more casualties? :rolleyes:

So when you say that Israel was not the instigator of the six-days war, then in the same sentence say that they launched a pre-emptive strike, you are contradicting yourself.
The war was instigated by the Arab preperations to invade Israel!

Oh, so Israel should have waited to be attacked, which would have resulted in a much longer war, and tens of thousands of more casualties? :rolleyes:
I could care less if it was justified. The fact is that Israel instigated the war by launching a preemptive strike. End of story. Denying history dooms us to repeat it.

The war was instigated by the Arab preperations to invade Israel!
and the Arab preparation to invade Israel was instigated by Israel making inroad in thier territory (or some other excuse). It goes on and on and on. Let's stop to shift the blame around and look at the facts:

Israel strikes first; They are the instigators.
Arabs invade first; They are the instigators.

Which one happened?

Well, the top level of Iranian government is not democratically elected at all (Israel has no Chief Rabbi as a Supreme Leader), Iran has not been stable for the past 30 years at all (maybe 20), and I personally abhor the disregard of Iranian government for human rights etc (all those stonings and hangings for adultery, fornication and homosexualism... Iran is not a pretty place to live).

There exists a huge difference between those two states which, however, doesn't excuse the threats that have been made.
I was merely making the point that the kettle is calling the pot black.

I agree that Iran is not a pretty place to lives. But there are elections to determine the government. Sure, they are limited on which candidates the Chief Rabbis authorize, but there are elections. Otherwise, we have to look at the UK as not a democratically elected government at all, since the head of state is the Queen.

A pity that Bush came along when he did because there was a social movement in Iran before he started his wars. People were asking for more rights for women, more choice in government and other reforms but all this has been scrapped because they are now "evil".

Peres is now a dangerous lunatic who threatened his neighbour. We must stop at nothing to disarm the Israeli state of it's nuclear arsenal. Imagine what could happen with a madman like Peres in charge of nuclear lauch codes!

I think the firs thing we should do is invest the UN security council of the Israeli nuclear situation and give them one last chance at diasrming. We should threathen them with economic sanctions and the possibility of invasion.

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hippocrits ;) :p

Agreed.

And that also means that we should take away the nukes of every other country who has them, like France, USA, Norway(of course they have them, its just that it isnt known outside the Norwegian military) actually I think that most any European and many Asian countries have them. And it seems to me a little retarded when these countries are in the forefront of condemning a set of countries who tries to make them for themselves.

We are all hypocrites. Its all about power. The rules dont seem to apply to the powerful, thats how The US can brake any UN law or any Geneve convention law they want without fear of sanctions.

Oh, so Israel should have waited to be attacked, which would have resulted in a much longer war, and tens of thousands of more casualties? :rolleyes:
*flash*

Of course!

It is all so clear now!

The state of Israel can never be wrong, it has always been in the right. Why didn't I see this before?! Why? Why?!

I could care less if it was justified. The fact is that Israel instigated the war by launching a preemptive strike. End of story. Denying history dooms us to repeat it.

No one is denying it. However to say that it doesn't matter if it was justified or not is really disingenious. Israel's attack was justified because they themselves were going to be subject to an unprovoked attacked.

OH brother. If you firmly believe that then I have a desert for sale in China.



A pre-emptive measure because their enemies were going to jump them again.



And its a good thing they did bomb that nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.



So where was the threat in 1948? They didn't do nothing to the arabs then. What about the 2nd war they fought? They didn't start that one either. The third war they did because they were going to get attacked again. And yet, Israel still wants peace with their neighbors.



Why aren't the other arabs helping the Palestinians? After all, they are the ones responsible for the Palestinian Refugee problem.



That's all they want. However they are surrounded by people who have attacked them in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if given the opportunity.

ok, let me answer all ur rebuttal, one point at a time.

1. it is most definately a democracy, leaders are elected, re elected, removed from power, party leaders are free to make speeches. its just unstable, give one piece of evidence that shows lebanon is a dictatorship.

2. You cannot be certain they were going to "jump" them again, for israels security, it was willing to put the lives and stability of the region at risk. The fact was, the 6 day war has been conclusively ruled a surprise attack by israel, thats how they were able to take so much land in 6 days, and also how they were able to bomb planes on the ground. If their "enemies" were ready to jump them again, they wouldve had numerous troops at the border, and planes IN THE SKY.

3. Its a matter of opinion if it was a good thing that they bombed it. However, the UN security council unanimously condemned it, as did the rest of the international community. At least osiraq was administered over French supervision, it wasnt like Saddam was trying to get a nuclear weapons using the dirtiest tactics possible. However u missed the point, the point was that israel is a highly aggressive nation that is willing to destablise the arab region in order to gain a few neccessary swing votes (the bombing was 3 weeks before a crucial election)

4. Israel wants "peace" with its neighbours because it has already gained the spoils. Israel unilaterally declared its independance in 1948, taking away land that was rightfully the arabs land. *hint hint* That might have been the reason the arab nations attacked israel. The fact is that israel is not supposed to be there in the first place, which is why the arab nations are against it.

5. Why are the arabs responsible when it was the israelis that evicted them? you should also remember the jordanian civil war, if the arab countries suddenly let in millions of palestinians, the entire region would be destabilised, for their home is palestine, not other arabic countries. Also remember that over half of jordan is palestinian.

6. Israel is the reason the middle east is so unstable, I have proved this already. The osiraq bombing proved that israel is willing to risk anything for its own "security" and selfish needs. Israels constant control over the palestinians due to its need for "security" has resulted in the fact that now the palestinians will never have a truly soverign state, remember how israelis said that after palestine is established, they cannot give expatriates right of return because israel fears for its security. Israel, keep your security matters inside your own borders.

If your a rat and wish to sleep somewhere safe, you shouldnt sleep in the middle of a group of cats, chances are that you will constantly be attacked by them, because u dont belong there, you should go somewhere else. If jews want a country, they should have gone to argentina or uganda (where they originally wanted to go) and not gone to the middle east, where they knew they would fact trouble and yet, thumbing their nose, decided to settle there anyway.

Also, if israel want peace, why doesnt it retract its borders to the UN approved ones, where they only have about 2/3 of the land they have now? the fact is that israel has been developing as quickly as possible in order to cement its place on the arabs land, look at how now some settlements in the west bank are so large it is impossible to evacuate the settlers, giving palestinians less land than the less land than the UN agreed israel-palestinian line.

From our local correspondent who is also a spy of ours in Tehran...
We know the nuclear weaponry Iran is stocking for the time being is made in Russia.

No UN offical took notice of this coz these nuke missiles are in some bag stamped "Diplomatic Document Do Not Open - Spassiba".

Our bearded spy (disguised as a carpet dealer from Baghdad) saw the runes on the "diplomatic document": ex-Ukrainian stock - 2 MT U232 - valid until 01/02/2007 -
The preemption date could explain why the Iranian president is rushing to mess around while he still got some arguments in his hands.

Now let's pray brothers and avoid the middle Eat where 1.000 suns could burn our skins if we play the wrong card, amen.

The High Priest
- Foreign Missionary Agency -

ok, let me answer all ur rebuttal, one point at a time.

1. it is most definately a democracy, leaders are elected, re elected, removed from power, party leaders are free to make speeches. its just unstable, give one piece of evidence that shows lebanon is a dictatorship.

Ohh. I never said Lebanon was a dictatorship. Far from it. However, they are not independent for they are controled by Syrian Intelligence. This is starting to change however and I can only hope that Lebanon can have full and fair elections without Syrian interference.

2. You cannot be certain they were going to "jump" them again, for israels security, it was willing to put the lives and stability of the region at risk. The fact was, the 6 day war has been conclusively ruled a surprise attack by israel, thats how they were able to take so much land in 6 days, and also how they were able to bomb planes on the ground. If their "enemies" were ready to jump them again, they wouldve had numerous troops at the border, and planes IN THE SKY.

Enemy troops lining up on the border, nations joining in military alliance to attack Israel.. yea they were and history has been proven that they were going to get jumped. My suggestion to you is to stop listening to bias arab press and actually do a bit of research. yes it was a surprise attack hence the phrase Pre-emption. Israel knew they were going to get attacked. Anyone who has studied this says the samething. True that the planes weren't in the sky yet but that doesn't mean they weren't going to attack and yes, there were troops on the border. Alot of them. Again, do some research.

3. Its a matter of opinion if it was a good thing that they bombed it. However, the UN security council unanimously condemned it, as did the rest of the international community.

Well duh. I would've too for political reasons but secretly, the western world (well some of them anyway) applauded it.

At least osiraq was administered over French supervision, it wasnt like Saddam was trying to get a nuclear weapons using the dirtiest tactics possible. However u missed the point, the point was that israel is a highly aggressive nation that is willing to destablise the arab region in order to gain a few neccessary swing votes (the bombing was 3 weeks before a crucial election)

Refresh my memory, who started the whole arab/israeli conflict? Oh yea, it was the ARABS, including IRAQ, that tried to stop Israel from being formed. Then they re-attacked again during Yum Kappor, then tried again only to get jumped by Israel. Most of what Israel does is in Self-Defense and frankly, I do not fault them for that. Do you fault Israel for defending itself against its hostile neighbors who have done all they can to destabilize the region? All Israel wants is to live peacefully with their neighbors. When they established their nations, they recognized ALL the Middle Eastern Countries and what do they get in return? They get attacked.

4. Israel wants "peace" with its neighbours because it has already gained the spoils. Israel unilaterally declared its independance in 1948, taking away land that was rightfully the arabs land.

Oh utter horse crap. They purchased the land legally from those who were their. They didn't take it by force. However, they got attacked and got more land after the war was over. Again, go back and learn abit of history before you spout your mouth.

*hint hint* That might have been the reason the arab nations attacked israel. The fact is that israel is not supposed to be there in the first place, which is why the arab nations are against it.

And your anti-semitism is really starting to come through. Historical facts are against you.

5. Why are the arabs responsible when it was the israelis that evicted them?

Do I have to repeat myself or are you going to actually research it? Do I have to point out to you as I did with someone else that SYRIA ADMITTED that they were RESPONSIBLE for the refugee Crisis?

you should also remember the jordanian civil war, if the arab countries suddenly let in millions of palestinians, the entire region would be destabilised, for their home is palestine, not other arabic countries. Also remember that over half of jordan is palestinian.

Yes you are right about that. That is why Jordan actually tried to help the Palestinian refugees.

6. Israel is the reason the middle east is so unstable, I have proved this already.

No you didn't.

*snip*

Go back and learn a little history from non-biased and more accurate sources than whatever it was you were spoon fed with.

Also, if israel want peace, why doesnt it retract its borders to the UN approved ones, where they only have about 2/3 of the land they have now?

If Palestine wanted its own nation then why did Yassar Arafat (may he rot in hell) turn down the return of most of the land that was taken away during the 3 Arab/Israeli Wars? Yea that's right bigot. Israel put on the table the retrun of I believe over 90% of the land back. Arafat turned down the deal. This was back in the 1990s dude.

...
Because this right is out of fashion. Its vestiges exist, for example, in English common law, where sovereign can, in theory, annex or cede territory at will. That's understandable given that William the Conqueror ascended the English throne owing in part to the right of conquest...[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that vestiges of it exist somewhere, but the fact is that if such a law was in anyway in force internationally, it would have been used by those who don't have to worry about "PR". Argentina re the Falklands/Malvinas. Far more so Saddam Hussein. Also Indonesia re East Timor. I'm sure that theres others who would have also benefited from such a "get out" clause.


Oh utter horse crap. They purchased the land legally from those who were their. They didn't take it by force....

The 1946 Survey conducted by the Britrish on which the rejected UN partition was based stated that 94% of the land was Arab owned. They did not therefore buy it, but seized it, using the Arab attack as pretext. We've gone into this in great detail before, and every time you dissappear only to reappear again saying the same disproven nonsense. It seems to be a habit with you.

Denying history dooms us to repeat it.
Tell that to the Arabs. ;)

*flash*

Of course!

It is all so clear now!

The state of Israel can never be wrong, it has always been in the right. Why didn't I see this before?! Why? Why?!
Israel was mere days away from being attacked. They acted in pre-emptive self-defense -- in full accordance with international law -- to neutralize the imminent deadly threat to their citizens and the continued sovereignty and freedom of the State of Israell, and doing so, ended the war quickly, and with far fewer casualties -- on both sides -- than would have occured had they waited for the attack they knew was coming.

End of story.

Israel was mere days away from being attacked. They acted in pre-emptive self-defense -- in full accordance with international law -- to neutralize the imminent deadly threat to their citizens and the continued sovereignty and freedom of the State of Israell, and doing so, ended the war quickly, and with far fewer casualties -- on both sides -- than would have occured had they waited for the attack they knew was coming.

End of story.

No, not the end of the story.

They used international law (ie. war of pre-emption) to their benefit and then broke international law by capturing land from the defeated parties, also to their benefit. By continuing to occupy this land, they continue to break international law. One does not excuse the other.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I was merely making the point that the kettle is calling the pot black.

I agree that Iran is not a pretty place to lives. But there are elections to determine the government. Sure, they are limited on which candidates the Chief Rabbis authorize, but there are elections. Otherwise, we have to look at the UK as not a democratically elected government at all, since the head of state is the Queen.

A pity that Bush came along when he did because there was a social movement in Iran before he started his wars. People were asking for more rights for women, more choice in government and other reforms but all this has been scrapped because they are now "evil".
The Queen cannot in practice overrule the elected government, the Faqih is above the consttution (Khamenei, Dec 1988). Thus, the comparison with the UK is, IMHO, invalid. Israel is far from perfect, but...

...

I'm sure that vestiges of it exist somewhere, but the fact is that if such a law was in anyway in force internationally, it would have been used by those who don't have to worry about "PR". Argentina re the Falklands/Malvinas. Far more so Saddam Hussein. Also Indonesia re East Timor. I'm sure that theres others who would have also benefited from such a "get out" clause.
...
Do you dispute its existence, or not?

The Queen cannot in practice overrule the elected government, the Faqih is above the consttution (Khamenei, Dec 1988). Thus, the comparison with the UK is, IMHO, invalid. Israel is far from perfect, but...

That doesn't mean though that the Queen is above the Constitution or the law (given Britain doesn't actually have a Constitution...)

The monarch can still break the laws of the land.

No, not the end of the story.

They used international law (ie. war of pre-emption) to their benefit and then broke international law by capturing land from the defeated parties, also to their benefit. By continuing to occupy this land, they continue to break international law. One does not excuse the other.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Well, they only replaced Egyptian and Jordanian occupation with Israeli occupation, didn't they? ;)

Do you dispute its existence, or not?

I'm pretty sure wars of conquest have been outlawed since the League of Nations was established in the post WWI era.

Granted it didn't do much in the next two decades...

That doesn't mean though that the Queen is above the Constitution or the law (given Britain doesn't actually have a Constitution...)

The monarch can still break the laws of the land.
The Faqih is above the constitution, he can override the elected government at will. Theocracy.

Oh dear. More sabre-rattling. This is not good.

I'm pretty sure wars of conquest have been outlawed since the League of Nations was established in the post WWI era.

Granted it didn't do much in the next two decades...
War itself was outlawed in 1928. ;)

Well, they only replaced Egyptian and Jordanian occupation with Israeli occupation, didn't they? ;)

Well the Golan heights never belonged to Israel, they were captured from Syria in the Six Day War.

The Sinai Peninsula was Egyptian before the 1967 war, and only got it back after the disengagments post- Yom Kippur.

The Faqih is above the constitution, he can override the elected government at will. Theocracy.

Ah. Fair enough :)

Has that happened post Revolution though?

Well the Golan heights never belonged to Israel, they were captured from Syria in the Six Day War.

The Sinai Peninsula was Egyptian before the 1967 war, and only got it back after the disengagments post- Yom Kippur.
Yes; however, neither is Palestinian. But what about the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Ah. Fair enough :)

Has that happened post Revolution though?
Certainly. It is a Khomeinist principle called... I'm going to mangle it... 'velayat e-faqih'.

if anyone should be wiped off the map it should be israel. they fire missiles at child rerugee camps. israel is a nation founded on blood shed. it is the worst thing to happen on this side of the last centuary. the israel gov can only be compared to the nazi's.
israel is a threat to iran and surrounding nations. ameriacn and european govs wont do anything to stop them. so the only hope is iran. iran may not be a disirable country but its the better of two evils.

Yes; however, neither is Palestinian. But what about the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

True- I was talking about the land captured during the 1967 war and not returned.

As for the West Bank and Gaza- why don't we let the people who live there decide? Works in Northern Ireland doesn't it?

Have a vote. Listen to what the people who live there want.

Do you dispute its existence, or not?
I do. Source, please.

Certainly. It is a Khomeinist principle called... I'm going to mangle it... 'velayat e-faqih'.

Well, thank you for enlightening me :D

Has that actually happened though? I mean it is a doctrinal and theoretical law, I am wondering has it ever being enforced?

True- I was talking about the land captured during the 1967 war and not returned.

As for the West Bank and Gaza- why don't we let the people who live there decide? Works in Northern Ireland doesn't it?

Have a vote. Listen to what the people who live there want.
It works more or less, although NI is still a mess... I want to understand just ine thing -- why no one was against Arab occupation of those territories between 1948 and 1967? Jordan even annexed the West Bank then, although, IIRC, it was recognized by the UK only.

I do. Source, please.
Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1996.

Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1996.
lovely, thank you.:fluffle:

It works more or less, although NI is still a mess... I want to understand just ine thing -- why no one was against Arab occupation of those territories between 1948 and 1967? Jordan even annexed the West Bank then, although, IIRC, it was recognized by the UK only.

Because the majority of people living there were content (well, content enough) to live under a that rule. I think its only fair to understand that if the region suddenly changes control, the people who live there might be understandably a tad pissed off with not having a say in it! :D

Let them choose who they want to live under- Israeli rule, Jordanian rule or an establishment of their own state.... like Israel did.

Do both sets of people not have the same rights to self determination?

Well, thank you for enlightening me :D

Has that actually happened though? I mean it is a doctrinal and theoretical law, I am wondering has it ever being enforced?
According to Hashemi-Rafsanjani, certain parts of the Iranian constitution were ignored with permission from Khomeini.

lovely, thank you.:fluffle:
Not at all, I'm always willing to please! :)

Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1996.

Ah, thank you :)

Edit: And at $140 a tad bloody pricey.

Edit2: Nevermind.

Because the majority of people living there were content (well, content enough) to live under a that rule. I think its only fair to understand that if the region suddenly changes control, the people who live there might be understandably a tad pissed off with not having a say in it! :D
Yeah... but 'satisfied population' is irrelevant in international law. The Arab occupation was just as illegal (or legal) as the present Israeli one.

Let them choose who they want to live under- Israeli rule, Jordanian rule or an establishment of their own state.... like Israel did.

Do both sets of people not have the same rights to self determination?
They do. But there is a great problem, and its name is Jerusalem.

Yeah... but 'satisfied population' is irrelevant in international law. The Arab occupation was just as illegal (or legal) as the present Israeli one.

Ah, but the rights of self determination would qualify as 'satisfied population'- they would choose their leadership via their own will. Not the will of a foreign power, an invading power or a occupying power. Then via self determination, they could indeed be 'satisfied'. No?


They do. But there is a great problem, and its name is Jerusalem.

True, true.
Capital of both perhaps? :confused:

Not at all, I'm always willing to please! :)


Nice read. Am I taking anything out of context here?

The prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force in our own times has been the cumulative effect of a variety of developments in international law, including the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Stimson Doctrine, the United Nations Charter, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International concerning Friendly Relations, and the acceptance of the principle of self-determination as a right in international law. The only exception to this prohibition would seem to be the case where an aggressor state, as a result of its total defeat in war, has ceased in fact to exist, and the inhabitants of the conquered territory actually wish to be brought under the jurisdiction of the occupying state in the exercise of their right to self-determination.

It is clear from the facts of this century's history that states did not renounce conquest as a means of gaining territory: only conquest as a lawful means of doing so.

(boldness is mine, for emphasis.)

Ah, but the rights of self determination would qualify as 'satisfied population'- they would choose their leadership via their own will. Not the will of a foreign power, an invading power or a occupying power. Then via self determination, they could indeed be 'satisfied'. No?
Yes, of course. he trouble is, neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed any kind of separate election for the West Bank and Gaza Strip; only Israel did.

To be precise, there were deputies from the West Bank in the Jordanian parliament between 1948 and 1988, but I've got a feeling that the manner of their election was not quite up to standards... :rolleyes:



True, true.
Capital of both perhaps? :confused:
Are they going to be satisfied? I really don't know.

Ah, thank you :)

Edit: And at $140 a tad bloody pricey.

Edit2: Nevermind.
Here (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26330746) is a cheaper version...teh interweb is your friend...

Nice read. Am I taking anything out of context here?

...
No, everything is OK. Just like I said, the right went out of fashion... I think it happened somewhere in the beginnig of the 20th Century. :)

No, everything is OK. Just like I said, the right went out of fashion... I think it happened somewhere in the beginnig of the 20th Century. :)
You did notice the part about lawfulness, right?

You did notice the part about lawfulness, right?
I've never argued that it is lawful; neither did Israel, of course (its diplomats aren't fools). It is an anachronism which, probably, exists only as part of English royal prerogative etc.

Here (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26330746) is a cheaper version...teh interweb is your friend...

*drools*

There goes the last credit card payment to amazon! I'm using this for everything! :D

Yes, of course. he trouble is, neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed any kind of separate election for the West Bank and Gaza Strip; only Israel did.
Agreed, but now that there is a voice crying out for self determination, I think it a bit disingenious for people to cry and lament about not allowing Israelies to have self determination- all the while not allowing the population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to have self determination.

I think enough time has passed and enough seperation of histroy and culture has occured to view both Gaza and the WB as now seperate from both their old rulers and Israel. I doubt the citizens would want to return sovereignty to states that abandonded them and the forced them out on the ear.

They want a seperate state from both Israel and Egypt/Jordan.


To be precise, there were deputies from the West Bank in the Jordanian parliament between 1948 and 1988, but I've got a feeling that the manner of their election was not quite up to standards...
It would be like having a govt. not able to carry out policy in its own territory. Pointless.

I agree with you, it was clearly a 'we're with you' statement ('we're with you in spirit, just not going to help you')

No, not the end of the story.

They used international law (ie. war of pre-emption) to their benefit and then broke international law by capturing land from the defeated parties, also to their benefit. By continuing to occupy this land, they continue to break international law. One does not excuse the other.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

And yet when they offer to return most of it to the Palestinians, they were rejected.

And yet when they offer to return most of it to the Palestinians, they were rejected.

Why not return all of it?

If one power is to glass the whole area, i would rather have it to be Israel than Iran.

if anyone should be wiped off the map it should be israel. they fire missiles at child rerugee camps. israel is a nation founded on blood shed. it is the worst thing to happen on this side of the last centuary. the israel gov can only be compared to the nazi's.

Goodwin's law does you no credit. Not to mention bad grammer. Where's the capitalization of the proper nouns? The US was founded by Bloodshed. France was founded by bloodshed. Germany, Russia, Italy... do you want me to continue to name the nations that were founded by bloodshed?

israel is a threat to iran and surrounding nations. ameriacn and european govs wont do anything to stop them. so the only hope is iran. iran may not be a disirable country but its the better of two evils.

And here, you lose more credibility and you are showing your anti-israeli shirt. Now if you have something substentive to say, I'll listen. Do you?

Whoo hoo. 3000 posts :D

Why not return all of it?

You know why it was rejected? It was rejected because of Jeruselum. As to your question, ask Israel. It gave them precisely what they wanted, minus Jerusalem.

On top of that, Palestine would be a state today if it was accepted.

You know why it was rejected? It was rejected because of Jeruselum. As to your question, ask Israel. It gave them precisely what they wanted, minus Jerusalem.

Well as I said earlier, thats understandable. Both want it to be their capital- it is very important to both sets of peoples.

I can understand why it is a sticking point- but after 50 years of bloodshed, you'd think they'd be getting a bit war weary of it?

Maybe a capital of both? Open city?

Well as I said earlier, thats understandable. Both want it to be their capital- it is very important to both sets of peoples.

I can understand why it is a sticking point- but after 50 years of bloodshed, you'd think they'd be getting a bit war weary of it?

Maybe a capital of both? Open city?

Funny you should mention it being an open city. It was originally planned to be an open city under UN Control however, the UN was never able to establish its flag there.

Funny you should mention it being an open city. It was originally planned to be an open city under UN Control however, the UN was never able to establish its flag there.

Well that's a surprise :D

Why not return all of it?
Jerusalem and the big settlements... :rolleyes:

...

Agreed, but now that there is a voice crying out for self determination, I think it a bit disingenious for people to cry and lament about not allowing Israelies to have self determination- all the while not allowing the population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to have self determination.

I think enough time has passed and enough seperation of histroy and culture has occured to view both Gaza and the WB as now seperate from both their old rulers and Israel. I doubt the citizens would want to return sovereignty to states that abandonded them and the forced them out on the ear.

They want a seperate state from both Israel and Egypt/Jordan.
Yes, and I'm all for the two-state solution. But there are several hurdles.


It would be like having a govt. not able to carry out policy in its own territory. Pointless.

I agree with you, it was clearly a 'we're with you' statement ('we're with you in spirit, just not going to help you')
Not quite... actually, the Jordanian army is the perpetrator of the cruellest Palestinian massacre (I mean the events of September 1970), not the Israelis. It can be argued that it was a retaliation, but still...

Not quite... actually, the Jordanian army is the perpetrator of the cruellest Palestinian massacre (I mean the events of September 1970), not the Israelis. It can be argued that it was a retaliation, but still...

Black September I know. Another reason I doubt Palestinians would want to be back under the control of another state - even if it was an Arab one.


Jerusalem and the big settlements... :rolleyes:
Well, you saw my point on the city itself. But as for the settlements *shrug* They shouldn't have been put there in the first place. War for land and colonisation? Tut tut.

The big BIG settlements that are on the border (or near enough) could be conceeded (and probably should be) by the PA. Others further in would have to be content in living in a non-Israeli controlled country.

Black September I know. Another reason I doubt Palestinians would want to be back under the control of another state - even if it was an Arab one.
I agree.

Well, you saw my point on the city itself. But as for the settlements *shrug* They shouldn't have been put there in the first place. War for land and colonisation? Tut tut.
Nevertheless, they do exist, and they are a problem.

The big BIG settlements that are on the border (or near enough) could be conceeded (and probably should be) by the PA. Others further in would have to be content in living in a non-Israeli controlled country.
I agree upon the big settlements (removing Ma'ale Adummim, for example, is simply inconceivable due to its sheer size), but seriosly doubt that Jews would be able to live in a future Arab state, like Arabs live in Israel. Arab states (well, most of them) are pretty intolerant to Jews.

I agree.


Nevertheless, they do exist, and they are a problem.


I agree upon the big settlements (removing Ma'ale Adummim, for example, is simply inconceivable due to its sheer size), but seriosly doubt that Jews would be able to live in a future Arab state, like Arabs live in Israel. Arab states (well, most of them) are pretty intolerant to Jews.
I agree that they Jews would be treated as second class citizen under an Arab authorithy. But it's not like the Arabs have all the rights and privileges of the Jews in Israel, from what I gather. If the Jews want, they can emigrate to Israel... again.

Actually, I ran did make a threat that Israel should be destroyed. That's a threat.

So, a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You should be shot!"

That's a threat.

But a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You can be shot!"

That's not a threat?

Interesting philosophy.

The difference is SHOULD and CAN. HUGE difference in intent.


So, a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You should be shot!"

That's a threat.

But a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You can be shot!"

That's not a threat?

Interesting philosophy.

The difference is SHOULD and CAN. HUGE difference in intent.

So does that mean in the hypothetical instance when a guy comes up to you with a gun and says "You can be shot!", you would not feel threatened?

Back to reality, Israel is the one with nukes, not Iran. So Iran isn't even a guy with a gun.

I agree that they Jews would be treated as second class citizen under an Arab authorithy. But it's not like the Arabs have all the rights and privileges of the Jews in Israel, from what I gather. If the Jews want, they can emigrate to Israel... again.
To be sure, Arabs are barred from serving in the IDF (except Druse Arabs?), and that's the only legal difference between Jewish and Israeli citizens. I've always thought that Arabs cannot own land in Israel, but I was wrong.

To be sure, Arabs are barred from serving in the IDF (except Druse Arabs?), and that's the only legal difference between Jewish and Israeli citizens. I've always thought that Arabs cannot own land in Israel, but I was wrong.
I think Bedouins serve in the Israeli military. If I'm not mistaken they're Muslim, not Druse.

I think Bedouins serve in the Israeli military. If I'm not mistaken they're Muslim, not Druse.
Maybe... I'm not sure, that's why I put that question mark.

So, a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You should be shot!"

That's a threat.

But a guy with a gun goes up to you and says, "You can be shot!"

That's not a threat?

Interesting philosophy.
Bad analogy. It's more like a guy going up to someone and saying "I'm gonna do my best to kill you" and then filling out an application to get a gun. The person threatened opens his jacket so you can see his gun and says "Just try it asshole"

Bad analogy. It's more like a guy going up to someone and saying "I'm gonna do my best to kill you" and then filling out an application to get a gun. The person threatened opens his jacket so you can see his gun and says "Just try it asshole"
And you don't think the guy with the gun and the asshole comment is threathening the other guy?

Bad analogy. It's more like a guy going up to someone and saying "I'm gonna do my best to kill you"

Well, look. If the argument is being made (with this "can" versus "should" thing) that Isreal is only, hypothetically stating the truth, then we can also say that so is Iran. They're just two innocent folks making hypothetical statements, yes? Iran never said "we're going to try to wipe Israel off the map", they just said it should be done

and then filling out an application to get a gun. The person threatened opens his jacket so you can see his gun and says "Just try it asshole"

Yeah, but neither one filed for an application. They should both be arrested since they're obviously going to kill each other, and anyone who gets in the way of their little lover's tiff.

Bad analogy. It's more like a guy going up to someone and saying "I'm gonna do my best to kill you" and then filling out an application to get a gun. The person threatened opens his jacket so you can see his gun and says "Just try it asshole"
Or perhaps an unarmed man telling another man that he should be shot, and an armed man telling them "I can shoot you any time I feel like it".

yay analogy war:gundge:

Peres is now a dangerous lunatic who threatened his neighbour. We must stop at nothing to disarm the Israeli state of it's nuclear arsenal. Imagine what could happen with a madman like Peres in charge of nuclear lauch codes!

I think the firs thing we should do is invest the UN security council of the Israeli nuclear situation and give them one last chance at diasrming. We should threathen them with economic sanctions and the possibility of invasion.

Those who do not agree with me and claim Iran should disarm are just hippocrits ;) :p

...Pardon me. "Hippocrits"?

There should be a game. Happy Happy Hipoocrits. I'd buy it.

...Pardon me. "Hippocrits"?

There should be a game. Happy Happy Hipoocrits. I'd buy it.
So I didn't spelled it right. :rolleyes: What is the correct wording, BTW. Every time someone use it, there's someone saying it isn't spelled right.

...

Yeah, but neither one filed for an application. They should both be arrested since they're obviously going to kill each other, and anyone who gets in the way of their little lover's tiff.
Well, one of them didn't need to apply for a gun permit, as gun ownership wasn't restricted at all when he was bying his six-shooter. ;)

So I didn't spelled it right. :rolleyes: What is the correct wording, BTW. Every time someone use it, there's someone saying it isn't spelled right.

Hehe. <3

It's "hypocrite".

Well, one of them didn't need to apply for a gun permit, as gun ownership wasn't restricted at all when he was bying his six-shooter. ;)
More importantly, why are we sitting on our behind watching two bad actors saying "Go ahead, punk. Make my day." and do nothing about it?

Hehe. <3

It's "hypocrite".
There, edited for your viewing pleasure.
Now kindly edit your post to make me look like the best speller in the universe. Please?

More importantly, why are we sitting on our behind watching two bad actors saying "Go ahead, punk. Make my day." and do nothing about it?
Do you think we Russians should nuke them both? :D

Do you think we Russians should nuke them both? :D
Depends. Did you fire five shots or six shots? ;)

Well, one of them didn't need to apply for a gun permit, as gun ownership wasn't restricted at all when he was bying his six-shooter. ;)

More like, one of them was the friend of the town sherrif, and thus the law enforcement turned the other cheek when he raided the town armory. The other was the town sherrif's ex-wife's new husband, which is why the town sherrif continues to supply his friend with ammunition for his gun while saying the other guy isn't allowed to own a gun. Meanwhile, the town sherrif owns a gatling gun and was thinking of breaking into the second guy's house and taking his wife back!

Oh the drama.

Depends. Did you fire five shots or six shots? ;)
Actually, it's an AK-47... :D

More like, one of them was the friend of the town sherrif, and thus the law enforcement turned the other cheek when he raided the town armory. The other was the town sherrif's ex-wife's new husband, which is why the town sherrif continues to supply his friend with ammunition for his gun while saying the other guy isn't allowed to own a gun. Meanwhile, the town sherrif owns a gatling gun and was thinking of breaking into the second guy's house and taking his wife back!

Oh the drama.
Fine analogy... and don't forget the French gun dealer! :)

Fine analogy... and don't forget the French gun dealer! :)

France can be wiped off the map!

...actually, as long as we're in analogy mood, talking about another country being on "the map" can be equivalent to simply unlisting someone's phone number from the phone book. Make it all seem kinda childish to me...

"I'm gonna unlist your number!"

"HELP! DEATH THREAT!"

Depends alot on who says it and how its said.

Could just be a warning.

alot a grey area.


So does that mean in the hypothetical instance when a guy comes up to you with a gun and says "You can be shot!", you would not feel threatened?

Back to reality, Israel is the one with nukes, not Iran. So Iran isn't even a guy with a gun.

Depends alot on who says it and how its said.

Could just be a warning.

alot a grey area.
Are you talking about Iran or Israel there. 'Cause there seem to be applicable to both.

Do you dispute its existence, or not?

In international law? Yes. Otherwise somebody would have screamed it out by now. No doubt you have some copy and past readied to try and "Ha!" me, however it better have an explanation as to why nobody has used it attached.

The only exception to this prohibition would seem to be the case where an aggressor state, as a result of its total defeat in war, has ceased in fact to exist, and the inhabitants of the conquered territory actually wish to be brought under the jurisdiction of the occupying state in the exercise of their right to self-determination

The above doesnt apply as its beyond doubt what the wishes of the Population of the occupied territories want, and its not Israeli rule.

Jordan has ceded all negotiation rights on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Palestinians btw.


And yet when they offer to return most of it to the Palestinians, they were rejected.?

What I object to most is the way you just lower the whole fucking tone. Thats a childish nonsensical distortion.


To be sure, Arabs are barred from serving in the IDF (except Druse Arabs?), and that's the only legal difference between Jewish and Israeli citizens. I've always thought that Arabs cannot own land in Israel, but I was wrong.?

There are restrictions on marriage as well as difficulties gaining planning permission- particularily in Jerusalem. Theres also massive "unofficial" discrimination against both Arabs and Sephradic Jews.

In international law? Yes. Otherwise somebody would have screamed it out by now. No doubt you have some copy and past readied to try and "Ha!" me, however it better have an explanation as to why nobody has used it attached.

1) It seems that you have a wee grudge against me. Well, it's your right.
2) I have already said that this right is presently unusable.

....

There are restrictions on marriage as well as difficulties gaining planning permission- particularily in Jerusalem. Theres also massive "unofficial" discrimination against both Arabs and Sephradic Jews.
Restrictions on marriage? Those restrictions are of religious nature, being intrinsic to both Judaism and Islam. It is no different from situation in Morocco or Iran, for that matter. And 'unofficial' discrimination is just that, unofficial.

Lets's put all this in context Isreal would lose face to have said nothing.
Back it was the diplomatic version of I'm rubber you are glue....:rolleyes: Are you talking about Iran or Israel there. 'Cause there seem to be applicable to both.

1) It seems that you have a wee grudge against me. Well, it's your right. .

No...not yet anyway..but don't let me ruin your paranoia.


Restrictions on marriage? Those restrictions are of religious nature, being intrinsic to both Judaism and Islam. It is no different from situation in Morocco or Iran, for that matter. And 'unofficial' discrimination is just that, unofficial.

"Marriage Restrictions and Issues of Identity Cards
The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, passed by the Knesset in July 2003, is a racist law designed to prevent family unification when one spouse is a Palestinian and a resident of the OPT. It suspends the procedures whereby a resident of the OPT who marries either a Jerusalemite or Israeli citizen can eventually gain either permanent residency status or citizenship, respectively. This law does not apply to Israeli settlers living (illegally under international law) in the OPT.

The effects of the law are both wide spread and devastating. Many women have to live outside of occupied East Jerusalem in order to maintain family unity. However, they also have to continue to rent an apartment and pay taxes in Jerusalem in order to prove that the city is their "centre of life", thus permitting them to keep their Jerusalem Identity Card (ID). The Jerusalem ID bestows certain privileges on the holder including travel, health and social security benefits – losing it will result in the loss of these benefits and will leave them without any nationality. The divisions created between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank by the construction of the Annexation Wall have exacerbated issues relating to identity further and many families are now divided as a result.

In addition, children born to women in the OPT can no longer be automatically registered in East Jerusalem, even if the mother holds residency there. If the children remain unregistered after the age of 12, the child may no longer live in Jerusalem or Israel with its mother, thus breaking the family unity and causing enormous suffering.

Despite Israel's justification for this law, as motivated by "security concerns", it is clear that the intention is to maintain the ethnic integrity of the Jewish state, while substantially affecting the character of the areas in Jerusalem occupied in 1967, and so contravening international humanitarian law."

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/64ecd3fbb0cd67b08525712b00570fbd!OpenDocument

No...not yet anyway..but don't let me ruin your paranoia.
Why are you so aggressive?



"Marriage Restrictions and Issues of Identity Cards
The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, passed by the Knesset in July 2003, is a racist law designed to prevent family unification when one spouse is a Palestinian and a resident of the OPT. It suspends the procedures whereby a resident of the OPT who marries either a Jerusalemite or Israeli citizen can eventually gain either permanent residency status or citizenship, respectively. This law does not apply to Israeli settlers living (illegally under international law) in the OPT.

The effects of the law are both wide spread and devastating. Many women have to live outside of occupied East Jerusalem in order to maintain family unity. However, they also have to continue to rent an apartment and pay taxes in Jerusalem in order to prove that the city is their "centre of life", thus permitting them to keep their Jerusalem Identity Card (ID). The Jerusalem ID bestows certain privileges on the holder including travel, health and social security benefits – losing it will result in the loss of these benefits and will leave them without any nationality. The divisions created between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank by the construction of the Annexation Wall have exacerbated issues relating to identity further and many families are now divided as a result.

In addition, children born to women in the OPT can no longer be automatically registered in East Jerusalem, even if the mother holds residency there. If the children remain unregistered after the age of 12, the child may no longer live in Jerusalem or Israel with its mother, thus breaking the family unity and causing enormous suffering.

Despite Israel's justification for this law, as motivated by "security concerns", it is clear that the intention is to maintain the ethnic integrity of the Jewish state, while substantially affecting the character of the areas in Jerusalem occupied in 1967, and so contravening international humanitarian law."

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/64ecd3fbb0cd67b08525712b00570fbd!OpenDocument
It is, evidently, a restriction of 'the procedures whereby a resident of the OPT who marries either a Jerusalemite or Israeli citizen can eventually gain either permanent residency status or citizenship' and not upon marriage itself. So...

Why are you so aggressive?.

I haven't actually been aggressive towards you. Corneliu, and one or two others maybe.


It is, evidently, a restriction of 'the procedures whereby a resident of the OPT who marries either a Jerusalemite or Israeli citizen can eventually gain either permanent residency status or citizenship' and not upon marriage itself. So...

It only applies to Palestinians. It effectively is a restriction on marriage. The former is more the point than the latter.

IWhat I object to most is the way you just lower the whole fucking tone. Thats a childish nonsensical distortion.

HEHE. If that's the way you feel, do not let me stop ya from denying the truth.

I haven't actually been aggressive towards you. Corneliu, and one or two others maybe.
I am mistaken then.



It only applies to Palestinians. It effectively is a restriction on marriage. The former is more the point than the latter.
Any sovereign state can do with its laws upon citizenship and residence whatever it likes. And there are no legal restrictions upon marriage. Meh.

Any sovereign state can do with its laws upon citizenship and residence whatever it likes. And there are no legal restrictions upon marriage. Meh.

So the fact theres a double standard in law for different communities doesnt count then....?

So the fact theres a double standard in law for different communities doesnt count then....?
It is a standard for Israelis and Palestinians, who are not citizens of Israel. Those restrictions do not apply to Israeli Arabs.