NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a short article from the Jerusalem Post, and a poll to go along with it. Article first, then the question to respond to:

Link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1145961342160)

May. 14, 2006 16:50
American teen wounded in Tel Aviv bombing dies
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

An American teen wounded in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv died Sunday of organ failure, a hospital spokeswoman said.

Daniel Wultz, 16, of Weston, Fla., is to be flown home for burial on Monday, said Yael Tzuberi, a spokeswoman for the Tel Aviv Medical Center, where he was hospitalized.

Wultz and his father, Tuly, were having lunch at a Tel Aviv restaurant when a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated 5 kilograms (about 10 pounds) of explosives. Eleven people, including Wultz, died as a result of the attack.

Should this be considered a terrorist attack against Israel, against the United States, or against both? Please explain your answer.

Attack against Civilization/Humanity.

If every citizen killed outside of his/her country was considered an attack against his/her country, that'd just be stupid...

If every citizen killed outside of his/her country was considered an attack against his/her country, that'd just be stupid...

Depends. Was the Libyan attack on the German disco in the 80s (mostly frequented by Americans) an attack on Germany only?

What about the attack a few years back on the western compound in Saudi Arabia by jihadists?

Against Israel. Just because a US civilian happened to be there doesn't make it an attack on the US.

It's rather sad that the rabid supporters of Israeli repression often feel the need to drum out the "Americans are being hurt too!" line, as if we were all bigoted ultra-nationalists who hold US lives to be more important than Israeli lives.

Unless it was a very American restaurant I'd say it's an attack soley against Israel.

Depends. Was the Libyan attack on the German disco in the 80s (mostly frequented by Americans) an attack on Germany only?

What about the attack a few years back on the western compound in Saudi Arabia by jihadists?

An attack specifically intended to target a certain nationality that happens to take place in a different country is another matter entirely from an attack on Israelis in which a US civilian happens to be hurt.

But ultimately, it really doesn't matter; this attack was disgusting and immoral regardless of the nationality of the innocent people killed, and if increased US intervention would do any good - which it probably won't - it would be justified regardless of whether or not Palestinian terrorism was targeting the United States.

Depends. Was the Libyan attack on the German disco in the 80s (mostly frequented by Americans) an attack on Germany only?

What about the attack a few years back on the western compound in Saudi Arabia by jihadists?

Good points. It should also be pointed out that the current Palestinian governing body, the one that was voted in by a majority of Palestinians, HAMAS, is dubbed a terrorist organization by the United States and is more than hostile toward the United States in its charter. I don't think there is any 'oops' when they kill an American along with Israelis, as killing Americans is part of their goal as well. Aside from Hamas, the other terrorist groups carrying attacks are equally hostile toward the West, if not moreso.

Unless it was a very American restaurant I'd say it's an attack soley against Israel.
I agree. There is nothing to indicate that an american was specifically targeted in this attack.

It's unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than if anyone else had died.

It was an attack on Israel, even though Im sure the OP will try to spin it so that it looks like Palestinians want to kill Americans when the reality is their true grief lies with the occupiers. If he was there he was mostly likely supporting Israel and therefore fair game. He is collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation.

It was an attack on Israel, even though Im sure the OP will try to spin it so that it looks like Palestinians want to kill Americans when the reality is their true grief lies with the occupiers. If he was there he was mostly likely supporting Israel and therefore fair game. He is collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation.

So would you call Saint Pancake collateral damage in the larger war against Palestinian terrorism?

It was an attack on Israel, even though Im sure the OP will try to spin it so that it looks like Palestinians want to kill Americans when the reality is their true grief lies with the occupiers. If he was there he was mostly likely supporting Israel and therefore fair game. He is collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation.

Could it be possible he was just a tourist? Not someone supporting Israel? Just possibly?

It was an attack on Israel, even though Im sure the OP will try to spin it so that it looks like Palestinians want to kill Americans when the reality is their true grief lies with the occupiers. If he was there he was mostly likely supporting Israel and therefore fair game. He is collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation.

Just to point out, there are acounts of Palestinian terror attacks against specific US targets. While this was indeed a case of "collateral damage", Palestinians do target Americans in the occupied territories. Palestinians hate the United States just like they hate Israel. In fact, its not uncommon in the Middle East for US foreign soldiers to be referred to collectively as "the Jews."

Palestinian Attacks on Americans (http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Palestinian_terrorism3_American_blood.asp)

So would you call Saint Pancake collateral damage in the larger war against Palestinian terrorism?
:upyours: No, its a completely different situation

You'd be foolish to think that this teenager was anything other than collateral damage. I don't think this bomber was looking for a US citizen to blow up.

Could it be possible he was just a tourist? Not someone supporting Israel? Just possibly?
possible, highly unlikely

Just to point out, there are acounts of Palestinian terror attacks against specific US targets. While this was indeed a case of "collateral damage", Palestinians do target Americans in the occupied territories. Palestinians hate the United States just like they hate Israel. In fact, its not uncommon in the Middle East for US foreign soldiers to be referred to collectively as "the Jews."

Palestinian Attacks on Americans (http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Palestinian_terrorism3_American_blood.asp)
Its simple math; the US stops supporting Israel= attacks against the US and Americans stop.

possible, highly unlikely

We have no information either way at the moment, so neither of us can truly be correct. We shall have to wait and see.

Its simple math; the US stops supporting Israel= attacks against the US and Americans stop.

I don't thbink it's quite as simple as that. I think the attacks would occur, as the US has gone far enough now to gain attacks past the 'Supporting Israel' reason.

I don't thbink it's quite as simple as that. I think the attacks would occur, as the US has gone far enough now to gain attacks past the 'Supporting Israel' reason.
I didnt mean all attacks, just those by the Palestinians and it would greatly reduce attacks by others as well.

So would you call Saint Pancake collateral damage in the larger war against Palestinian terrorism?
Who?

...

Oh, never mind. You were just being spiteful, insensitive and respectless in your offensive description, weren't you. Oh well...

Who?

...

Oh, never mind. You were just being spiteful, insensitive and respectless in your offensive description, weren't you. Oh well...

No more so than referring to a man murdered by a subhuman terrorist for having lunch with his father as "collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation."

--- MODEDIT: Trolling image removed. DON'T. ---

If you think Palestinian or Arab attacks against Americans and the United States would stop as a result of the United States cutting ties with Israel, you're dreaming and you don't understand the Middle East well. The myth of the vast Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East, so much so that there was a television sitcom made out of the conspiracy theory of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Lebanese TV at one point.

In short, if Israel were entirely destroyed and Jews were removed from the Middle East, Arabs and Palestinians would target the United States as the next big Zionist, Western, Jewish stronghold, as their goal is not simply the liberation of the "illegal occupation" as some would have you believe, but the murder of all Jews. An example from the HAMAS (current territorial govt) charter:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Who?

...

Oh, never mind. You were just being spiteful, insensitive and respectless in your offensive description, weren't you. Oh well...
indeed he was *sigh*

No more so than referring to a man murdered by a subhuman terrorist for having lunch with his father as "collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation."

--- MODEDIT: Trolling image removed. DON'T. ---
Actually collateral dammage is the correct term, the bomb wasnt intended for him, it was intended for Israelis. Therefore he is collateral dammage in what is very much a war. Refering to someone who was murdered standing up for basic human rights as a pancake is disrespectful.

Standing in front of a bulldozer is hazardous to one's health.

If you think Palestinian or Arab attacks against Americans and the United States would stop as a result of the United States cutting ties with Israel, you're dreaming and you don't understand the Middle East well. The myth of the vast Jewish conspiracy is very popular in the Middle East, so much so that there was a television sitcom made out of the conspiracy theory of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Lebanese TV at one point.

In short, if Israel were entirely destroyed and Jews were removed from the Middle East, Arabs and Palestinians would target the United States as the next big Zionist, Western, Jewish stronghold, as their goal is not simply the liberation of the "illegal occupation" as some would have you believe, but the murder of all Jews. An example from the HAMAS (current territorial govt) charter:
You dont seem to understand that what they say is just hot air and is a result of the social and political conditions in which they live. If they didnt feel threaten, they wouldnt target anyone. take for example the dark ages, Arabs and muslims had far more control than they do now. They were tolerant and allowed Christians and Jews to practice freely and did not try to wipe them out.

The Christians and Jews however felt oppressed and did things like kill non-believers and went on crusades to destory non- Christians. So your quote is basically what a Christian or Jew would say 100's of years ago.

Standing in front of a bulldozer is hazardous to one's health.
Only if an Israeli is driving it. They tend to like to murder

You dont seem to understand that what they say is just hot air and is a result of the social and political conditions in which they live. If they didnt feel threaten, they wouldnt target anyone.I started to refuse accepting this excuses long, long ago. I do not buy it. Flat-out.

Could it be possible he was just a tourist? Not someone supporting Israel? Just possibly?

Even if she was just a tourist, it was her choice to support an evil and corrupt system that is determined to wage an unfair war against all its neighbours.
Personally, I wouldnt even start to consider going to Israel, as long as it doesnt change its policies.

So: collateral damage, too bad for the girl and her family, but for the rest: who cares? Probably the Israelis already shot 10 Palestinian children anyway, as revenge...

I totally agree with Kreitzmoorland. they are just plain evil. they do it simply because they enjoy killing people so much. right now the better part of the palestinian people dream about drinking your blood! beware!

I started to refuse accepting this excuses long, long ago. I do not buy it. Flat-out.
Its that attitude that will get people killed. Thats like saying poverty doesnt cause crime.

Its that attitude that will get people killed. Thats like saying poverty doesnt cause crime.
This could get off topic, but consider this:

Most Africans do not enjoy a position of wealth, influence, or health.
Many Haitians live in situations of civil war, instability, corruption, and hunger.

Arabs in general are no worse off.
Bombs anyone?

You dont seem to understand that what they say is just hot air and is a result of the social and political conditions in which they live. If they didnt feel threaten, they wouldnt target anyone. take for example the dark ages, Arabs and muslims had far more control than they do now. They were tolerant and allowed Christians and Jews to practice freely and did not try to wipe them out.

The Christians and Jews however felt oppressed and did things like kill non-believers and went on crusades to destory non- Christians. So your quote is basically what a Christian or Jew would say 100's of years ago.

1. There is no such thing as a "Jewish crusade." Jews have never gone on crusades to destroy Muslims hundreds of years ago.

2. During the "dark ages", when Muslims were in control, Jews and Christians were systematically persecuted, forcefully converted, and murdered. The Islamic Almohad dynasty between the 12th and 13th centuries is a good example of this, who conquored with violence and gave Jews and Christians the choice of conversion or death.

Even today, Muslims Arabs in power are committing mass genocide on non-Arabs, like the Darfur genocide that is currently going on.

Only if an Israeli is driving it. They tend to like to murder

That's as fair as saying that Palestinians tend to like to be snipers and bombers.

This could get off topic, but consider this:

Most Africans do not enjoy a position of wealth, influence, or health.
Many Haitians live in situations of civil war, instability, corruption, and hunger.

Arabs in general are no worse off.
Bombs anyone?
The difference is Africans and Haitians arent being oppressed by outside forces, their problems are from within. Thats why they attack others on the outside but they do fight among themselves.

The difference is Africans and Haitians arent being oppressed by outside forces, their problems are from within. Thats why they attack others on the outside but they do fight among themselves.No, Haiti and Africa have rich histories of colonial opression. The fact is, that most of the Arab world's problems are self-inflicted, or at the very least, of complex 'origin'. Claiming that it is someone else's fault that they suppport terror and violence is a fallacy.

Explain to me how Saudi Arabia is "opressed by outside forces" and why they fund terroism?

1. There is no such thing as a "Jewish crusade." Jews have never gone on crusades to destroy Muslims hundreds of years ago.

Thats only because they are weak in numbers and in strength. Doesnt it say somewhere in torah or in Jewish law its ok to make others the slaves of the jews?
2. During the "dark ages", when Muslims were in control, Jews and Christians were systematically persecuted, forcefully converted, and murdered. The Islamic Almohad dynasty between the 12th and 13th centuries is a good example of this, who conquored with violence and gave Jews and Christians the choice of conversion or death.
All those things Christians and Jews did as well

Even today, Muslims Arabs in power are committing mass genocide on non-Arabs, like the Darfur genocide that is currently going on.
Actually, they arent arab, they are african. They are just called arab(I forget why). Paul Pot(sp?)and Hilter werent muslim and in Bosnia muslims were the target of genocide.

The difference is Africans and Haitians arent being oppressed by outside forces, their problems are from within. Thats why they attack others on the outside but they do fight among themselves.

Why was Israel attacked from Gaza when it completely pulled out of Gaza?

If there was a legitimate struggle against the occupation, how come a place that was completely unoccupied was being used as a base for terrorists to launch rockets into Israel? There was no "oppression by outside forces" there.

And why were Jews attacked by Arabs en masse before Israel even existed as a state? Where was the oppression from outside forces?

Why was Israel attacked from Gaza when it completely pulled out of Gaza?

If there was a legitimate struggle against the occupation, how come a place that was completely unoccupied was being used as a base for terrorists to launch rockets into Israel? There was no "oppression by outside forces" there.

And why were Jews attacked by Arabs en masse before Israel even existed as a state? Where was the oppression from outside forces?Well, in that case the Jews *were* the "outside force".

This whole discussion is a bit silly, to be honest. All nations need to take ownesrship of their societal problems NOW, regardless of what "caused" them. Going into blame, "root causes" and domino effects leads to justification, which leads to denial.

Thats only because they are weak in numbers and in strength. Doesnt it say somewhere in torah or in Jewish law its ok to make others the slaves of the jews?

rofl, what? The fact is, there has never been a Jewish crusade. Saying "because they are weak in numbers" doesnt change the fact that it was Muslims oppressing Jews, not Jews oppressing Muslims.

All those things Christians and Jews did as well

Cite one historical example of Jews doing such a thing. We know Christians did it. Jews didn't.

Actually, they arent arab, they are african. They are just called arab(I forget why). Paul Pot(sp?)and Hilter werent muslim and in Bosnia muslims were the target of genocide.

No, the genocide in Darfur is being done by Arabs. They are called Arab because they are Arab. Denying the fact that they are Arabs isn't going to change what the entire world sees going on. You can lie to yourself, but you aren't fooling us. Arabs have had a very long history of Africa, because Arabs were major slave traders. The vast majority of North Africa is populated by Arabs, and they have a large presence in sub-saharan Africa as well.

And Pol Pot and Hitler weren't Jewish. WTF does that have to do with the fact that it has been Arabs and Muslims killing Jews, not Jews killing Arabs and Muslims? You're trying to change the subject.

No, Haiti and Africa have rich histories of colonial opression.
Yes histories, not currrent which is why you dont see them attacking outsiders.

The fact is, that most of the Arab world's problems are self-inflicted, or at the very least, of complex 'origin'. Claiming that it is someone else's fault that they suppport terror and violence is a fallacy.
They arent self-inflicted. In the past it was colonial rule and random carving up of land not matching ethnic and religious lines, leading to civil strive. Now its situations like Palestine, occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and US support for unelected regimes for oil.

Explain to me how Saudi Arabia is "opressed by outside forces" and why they fund terroism?
The US props up their government which oppresses their people and violates human rights, which leads to extremism. They may fund terrorism however the US supports them, so in a way the US supports terror funding.

Why was Israel attacked from Gaza when it completely pulled out of Gaza?

If there was a legitimate struggle against the occupation, how come a place that was completely unoccupied was being used as a base for terrorists to launch rockets into Israel? There was no "oppression by outside forces" there.
It doesnt matter if Gaza isnt occupied, the west bank still is very occupied and Palestine still isnt a state. So there is still oppression from outside forces

And why were Jews attacked by Arabs en masse before Israel even existed as a state? Where was the oppression from outside forces?
Im guessing they were attacked because they were invading their land

Yes histories, not currrent which is why you dont see them attacking outsiders.
|
|
|
|
\/

The US props up their government which oppresses their people and violates human rights, which leads to extremism. They may fund terrorism however the US supports them, so in a way the US supports terror funding.
there is no present "outside opression" in Saudi Arabia. There is a mutual relationship. Why the violence?

Yes histories, not currrent which is why you dont see them attacking outsiders.
Cote d'Ivoire? http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/15/cotedi9880.htm

They arent self-inflicted. In the past it was colonial rule and random carving up of land not matching ethnic and religious lines, leading to civil strive. Now its situations like Palestine, occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and US support for unelected regimes for oil.
I seem to remember elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq -- and gee, where is all this oil the US is supposed to have gotten? Prices for oil skyrocketed once the US got involved there.


The US props up their government which oppresses their people and violates human rights, which leads to extremism. They may fund terrorism however the US supports them, so in a way the US supports terror funding. Props up their government how? They elect their own. Oppresses their people and violates human rights how? Do bombings of civilians not violate human rights? Fund terrorism how?

Please do back up your assertions.

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]rofl, what? The fact is, there has never been a Jewish crusade. Saying "because they are weak in numbers" doesnt change the fact that it was Muslims oppressing Jews, not Jews oppressing Muslims.
Jews are oppressing Muslims in Palestine


Cite one historical example of Jews doing such a thing. We know Christians did it. Jews didn't.
they would have had they had the numbers


No, the genocide in Darfur is being done by Arabs. They are called Arab because they are Arab. Denying the fact that they are Arabs isn't going to change what the entire world sees going on. You can lie to yourself, but you aren't fooling us. Arabs have had a very long history of Africa, because Arabs were major slave traders. The vast majority of North Africa is populated by Arabs, and they have a large presence in sub-saharan Africa as well.

And Pol Pot and Hitler weren't Jewish. WTF does that have to do with the fact that it has been Arabs and Muslims killing Jews, not Jews killing Arabs and Muslims? You're trying to change the subject.
Look it up they arent arab.

there is no present "outside opression" in Saudi Arabia. There is a mutual relationship. Why the violence?
Ok, perhaps I didnt make it clear. The outside oppression comes from a foreign government(US) supporting and forcing a government on the people that oppresses them.

Ok, perhaps I didnt make it clear. The outside oppression comes from a foreign government(US) supporting and forcing a government on the people that oppresses them.
Come on. The terrorists are supported financially, and connected fillialy TO to the Saudi government.

Who cares? Guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Happens all the time.

Jews are oppressing Muslims in Palestine

You're trying to change the subject from 1000 years of what ARAB historians admit was Arab Muslim oppression of Jews, like the Almohad Dynasty, to what you perceive to be Jewish oppression. Thats not going to cut it.

they would have had they had the numbers

I see, so you admit that they didn't. Rather, you just hate Jews so much you'll assume that Jews would have oppressed Muslims had they the numbers. Thats great.

Look it up they arent arab.

When I look it up, are you going to listen and believe me that Arabs are committing genocide in Darfur? Here we go:

Wikipedia, Darfur Conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_Genocide):

The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, is providing arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the group. The conflict began in February 2003.

The large majority of resultant refugees are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Arab Janjaweed attacks,

Tocqueville Connection, FRANCE URGES SUDAN GOVERNMENT TO STOP DARFUR ARAB MILITIA'S ATTACKS (http://www.ttc.org/cgi-binloc/searchTTC.cgi?displayZop+17131)

France has urged the Sudanese government immediately to stop attacks by its ally in the war in Sudan's western Darfur region, the Arab Janjawid militia, a foreign ministry spokesman said here Friday.

BBC, Sudan's Darfur Conflict (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm):

Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population, although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide.

Reuters, Violence Against Darfur Women Worsens (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04481954.htm):

The Khartoum government tried to crush the Darfur rebellion by using militias drawn from Arab tribes.

Need I go on? In fact, Arabs have killed more Africans in Darfur than Israelis have killed in the entire history of the Israeli state. Just like the United States military has killed more in this last Iraqi occupation than Israelis have killed in the entire history of the Israeli state. And yet, somehow all of these figures are ignored, and Israel is painted as the violent one.

Cote d'Ivoire? http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/15/cotedi9880.htm
Im not sure what you mean by this

I seem to remember elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq -- and gee, where is all this oil the US is supposed to have gotten? Prices for oil skyrocketed once the US got involved there.
I was talking about the oil the US gets from other places like Saudi Arabia where they prop up the gov. to keep the oil flowing

Props up their government how? They elect their own.
In Saudi Arabia? your joking right?

Oppresses their people and violates human rights how?
Saudi Arabia is well known for doing this

Do bombings of civilians not violate human rights? Fund terrorism how?
Using that logic what the US does in Iraq and Afghanistan violate human rights,no?

The US funds the North Alliance as one example, which is much like the Taliban in its beliefs and practices.

Come on. The terrorists are supported financially, and connected fillialy TO to the Saudi government.
And the US does nothing to stop it, whats your point?

[QUOTE]Look it up they arent arab.
From darfurgenocide.org:

From darfurgenocide.org:

The Crime of Our New Century...

The Sudanese Government, using Arab "Janjaweed" militias, its air force, and organized starvation, is systematically killing the black Sudanese of Darfur.



http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/5.htm#_Toc71531690
Together the government and Arab Janjaweed militias targeted the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa through a combination of indiscriminate and deliberate aerial bombardment, denial of access to humanitarian assistance, and scorched-earth tactics that displaced hundreds of thousands of civilian...




http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040830fa_fact1
Amina Abaker Mohammed occupies a simple mud hut with a thatched roof outside a refugee camp in northern Chad. Until earlier this year, she lived in Darfur, the western region of Sudan, where the Sudanese government is pursuing a campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs. Amina is a member of the Zaghawa tribe, one of the largest non-Arab ethnic groups in Darfur. Her village, which was burned to the ground by Sudanese soldiers and Arab militiamen...


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm

Human Rights Crisis

The non-Arab population of Darfur continues to suffer from crimes against humanity. A review of 1,136 interviews shows a consistent pattern of atrocities, suggesting close coordination between GOS forces and Arab militia elements, commonly known as the Jingaweit (Janjaweed). ("Jingaweit" is an Arabic term meaning "horse and gun.")

Despite the current cease-fire and UN Security Council Resolution 1556, Jingaweit violence against civilians has continued (cease-fire violations by both the Jingaweit and the rebels have continued as well). Media reports on August 10, 16, and 19 chronicled GOS-Jingaweit attacks in Western Darfur. In addition to their work on the survey, the interviewers had the opportunity to speak with newly arrived refugees who provided accounts that tended to confirm press reports of continuing GOS participation in recent attacks. Refugees who fled the violence on August 6 and 8 spoke with the team, providing accounts consistent with media reports: joint GOS military and Jingaweit attacks; strafing by helicopter gun ships followed by ground attacks by the GOS military in vehicles and Jingaweit on horseback; males being shot or knifed; and women being abducted or raped. Respondents reported these attacks destroyed five villages. Multiple respondents also reported attacks on the IDP camp of Arja.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/darfur.html

Fact Sheet #53 (PDF - 131 kb)
Map of Ongoing U.S. Government Programs (PDF - 251 kb)
Current Humanitarian Situation
Security

* UNHCR reported that on September 29, 250 to 300 armed Arab men riding horses and camels attacked Aro Sharow IDP camp, West Darfur, killing 29 people and causing most of the camp’s 4,000 to 5,000 residents to flee into the countryside. According to UNHCR, the armed men burned more than 80 shelters in the camp, located 16 km north of Seleia town in Kulbus. UNHCR officials reported that the Aro Sharow attack was the first large-scale assault on a Darfur IDP camp. U.N. Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland condemned the attack and blamed all parties to the Darfur conflict for the increasing number of attacks targeting humanitarian workers in recent weeks. Egeland stated that the U.N. may cease operations in Darfur if the security situation continues to deteriorate.

I think you need to look it up.

You're trying to change the subject from 1000 years of what ARAB historians admit was Arab Muslim oppression of Jews, like the Almohad Dynasty, to what you perceive to be Jewish oppression. Thats not going to cut it.
No your changing the subject


I see, so you admit that they didn't. Rather, you just hate Jews so much you'll assume that Jews would have oppressed Muslims had they the numbers. Thats great.

I wondering how long it would it be until I was accused of being a jew hater. about 2pages, I think thats a record:rolleyes:

When one of you are booted out of your home to compensate for other country's crimes. When you one of you are denied basics, such as, electricity, clean water, schools and roads, in already sub-standard areas of a country that used to be yours. At that time, I suppose you may be able to pass judgement on how the people who have been going through these long lasting, heavily funded and wided sanctioned acts of terrorism for years should react.
Lets imagine a scenario:
Many Americans enslaved blacks, killed them, mistreated them, offered them less than any human should have. Till this day in America, we have social and culture issues reflecting this treatment. So, many (blacks) may feel they are living in a hostile enviroment, and they may welcome their own homeland, where they could feel safe, secure and govern themselves, just like what was offered to the Jews. (lets put aside the fact that giving Israel to the Jews was based on additional political and religious issues, [other than the simplification I've made here for my analogy] that probably had no business in political decisions, but I digress).
Lets take any coastal state, Maine, Florida, Washington, whatever. So we inform citizens of said state that they must vacate their homes to accomodate the new population. You can migrate to neighboring states, or you can stay and live under the new government of this population. But all property rights are null and void.
Can you imagine farmer John's reaction? The man whose grandpa was born on that farm, who got married on that land, where all his failures and successes can be recalled in a glance at the old Oak tree or the cedar sided house.
The new government does give the old inhabitants some territory, but it is the most barren, least productive and totally enclosed by the rest of the new 'country'. This territory can be blocked off at will by the country, if the inhabitants' conduct is not acceptable, since it has no border with the other country or seaports.
So now farmer John lives in a shanty-town shack, in an insect ridden swamp, his children go to school once in a while if the electricity is on and there is an unusual moment of peace. A few generations go by like this, until there is no hope in or for people like farmer John at all.
So before just talking out the side of your mouth, try to imagine just what you reaction would be if you were someone with no resources, no hope and your only means of protesting is rock throwing or killing yourself.
I do not sanction any killing, but I can understand the desparation that any severly opposed people must feel. I don't think blaming is ever going to change anything. Thats why Hamas runs Palestine. The blame game is ineffective. If change was implemented, not word games and blame, then there would be no Hamas.
Also, as a tax payer, I'd much rather see my tax dollar spent here, on our citizens than to promote chaos and mayhem in the middle east.

I know they are called arabs, but ethnically they are not

So, do you always deny someone's ethnicity when they make yours look bad?

Just so you what an ethnicity is, I'll give you a quickie out of wikipedia on it:

"An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community."

The Arabs in Darfur share the same ancestry as the Arabs in the Middle East. They also share the same language (Arabic) the same religion (Islam) the same culture (music, architecture, food, clothing, etc.). By definition, they are the same ethnicity.

And if you think they aren't, I'd love to hear an ethnic group that you think they belong to, and why.

And the US does nothing to stop it, whats your point?
If they did you would be screaming IMPERIAL INTERVENTIONIST SCUM!

The point is, the main responsibility lies with each nation for its own actions. Particularly a finacially independent one like Saudi Arabia.

So would you call Saint Pancake collateral damage in the larger war against Palestinian terrorism?


Wonderful how one phrase can betray a multitude. Had somebody come up with a "cute" name for this poor lad no doubt you'd be screaming "anti-semite/you just hate America"...............


No more so than referring to a man murdered by a subhuman terrorist for having lunch with his father as "collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation."?

A phrase or concept used all the time in relation to the hundreds of palestinian children killed


I don't think there is any 'oops' when they kill an American along with Israelis, as killing Americans is part of their goal as well.?

The suicide bomb is a precision weapon now, is it? Did the bomber ask everybody where they were from in the estimated blast radius before going back to the place he'd written "pull boom cord here" on the ground?


In short, if Israel were entirely destroyed and Jews were removed from the Middle East, Arabs and Palestinians would target the United States as the next big Zionist, Western, Jewish stronghold, as their goal is not simply the liberation of the "illegal occupation" as some would have you believe, but the murder of all Jews..?

Bollocks. And its not "illegal" it is illegal, whatever one might think of the Palestinian response to it.



2. During the "dark ages", when Muslims were in control, Jews and Christians were systematically persecuted, forcefully converted, and murdered. The Islamic Almohad dynasty between the 12th and 13th centuries is a good example of this, who conquored with violence and gave Jews and Christians the choice of conversion or death. ..?

Dear me. While the Almohads were indeed rather a nasty bunch, the muslim moorish rule in Spain was indeed generally a relatively enlightened era. So much so that the spanish (despite their infinitely worse Inquisition) were frequently denigrated as being tainted and the children of "Jews and moors". The Jewish people certainly faired far better under muslim rule generally than when subjected to the christian mob.


No, Haiti and Africa have rich histories of colonial opression. ..?

And resisted violently when occupied. As to your question, why did R Reagan finance the contras?


Why was Israel attacked from Gaza when it completely pulled out of Gaza?
..?There was no "oppression by outside forces" there.


Yet has complete control of the borders and still occupies Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

When they remove themselves from there, you can complain about attacks lacking justification.


Arabs have killed more Africans

Strawman nonsense. They are not some mass bloc acting as one, and the cultures vary greatly. Thats as bad as generalising about Jews.

I know they are called arabs, but ethnically they are not

And you base this opinion on what, pray tell?

If they did you would be screaming IMPERIAL INTERVENTIONIST SCUM!

The point is, the main responsibility lies with each nation for its own actions. Particularly a finacially independent one like Saudi Arabia.
They arent finacially independent, they rely on the US which means that the US basically gives them the money they give to terrorists and the US doesnt care just as they dont care that the Saudis violate human rights, just as long as the oil flows.

The suicide bomb is a precision weapon now, is it? Did the bomber ask everybody where they were from in the estimated blast radius before going back to the place he'd written "pull boom cord here" on the ground?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? I stated that there is no 'oops' when they kill an American as well, as that is part of their goal too. And it is, as it is written in the charters of most terrorist groups, like I've demonstrated.

Bollocks. And its not "illegal" it is illegal, whatever one might think of the Palestinian response to it.

Illegal according to whom? Palestinians? International law? National civil law, according to most soverign states, either takes precedent or runs parallel to international law. The fact is, if Israel doesn't say its illegal, then there is no basis to say its illegal.

Dear me. While the Almohads were indeed rather a nasty bunch, the muslim moorish rule in Spain was indeed generally a relatively enlightened era. So much so that the spanish (despite their infinitely worse Inquisition) were frequently denigrated as being tainted and the children of "Jews and moors". The Jewish people certainly faired far better under muslim rule generally than when subjected to the christian mob.

This is a variation of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. The fact is, Jews were persecuted by Christians and Muslims. Saying that there were periods of enlightenement or that they fared better under Muslim rule, although true, does not change the fact that Muslims were brutal oppressors and forcefully converted and murdered Jews. You've just slipped into fallacious reasoning to cover up the bloody history of Arabs and Islam.

Strawman nonsense. They are not some mass bloc acting as one, and the cultures vary greatly. Thats as bad as generalising about Jews.

You always ignore key words. We're talking about the jangaweed Arabs. They ARE in fact one mass bloc acting as one; they were hired by the Sudan government as a milita. They are quite united, and as I've stated, are responsible for the current genocide that has claimed more African lives than can be attributed to Israeli killing in the entire history of the state.

Nowhere did I give a sweeping generalization about African Arabs, but I was quite clear in my reference to the Darfur Arab jangaweed milita.

Illegal according to whom? Palestinians? International law? National civil law, according to most soverign states, either takes precedent or runs parallel to international law. The fact is, if Israel doesn't say its illegal, then there is no basis to say its illegal.



International law says its illegal.

International law says its illegal.

And the civil law of soverign states always takes precedent over international law.

Illegal according to whom? Palestinians? International law? National civil law, according to most soverign states, either takes precedent or runs parallel to international law. The fact is, if Israel doesn't say its illegal, then there is no basis to say its illegal.
Thats the stupidiest thing I have ever read(seriously). Thats like saying I can murder someone but as long as I dont say it was murder or that its illegal then I cant be tried for it. The fact is the international community has said over and over the occupation and the settlements are illegal and the israelis get away with it b/c of the US


This is a variation of the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. The fact is, Jews were persecuted by Christians and Muslims. Saying that there were periods of enlightenement or that they fared better under Muslim rule, although true, does not change the fact that Muslims were brutal oppressors and forcefully converted and murdered Jews. You've just slipped into fallacious reasoning to cover up the bloody history of Arabs and Islam.

your thinking of the Christians

And the civil law of soverign states always takes precedent over international law.
No it doesn't, for example see cases taken to the ECJ or the European Court of Human Rights.

Thats the stupidiest thing I have ever read(seriously). Thats like saying I can murder someone but as long as I dont say it was murder or that its illegal then I cant be tried for it. The fact is the international community has said over and over the occupation and the settlements are illegal and the israelis get away with it b/c of the US

No, I'm actually thinking of the way international law applies to common law countries such as Israel (not civil law, my mistake). It may be the "stupdiest thing" you've ever heard of, but thats the way international law works. It isn't like saying you can murder someone, because that is a state law, and has nothing to do with international law. The international community saying (or withholding its say, in many cases) that the settlements are illegal (not the occupation) does not make it so under international law due to the way international law works. Sorry.

your thinking of the Christians

The Almohads are Christians or Muslims? Try Muslims.

No it doesn't, for example see cases taken to the ECJ or the European Court of Human Rights.

I was actually referring to common law states rather than civil law states. However, an example in one situation does not mean that it is applicable in the next. International law works by treaty and agreement. And the ECJ and the European Council, like you've mentioned, are only composed and hold jurisdiction over member states. They would never do anything with a state like Israel, or Asian states, etc.

My question of how it can be justified that Arab Janjaweed (which are recognized as Arab by every organization on Earth EXCEPT UN Abassadorship) are not Arab still has not been answered.

My question of how it can be justified that Arab Janjaweed (which are recognized as Arab by every organization on Earth EXCEPT UN Abassadorship) are not Arab still has not been answered.

Oh, I was going to point out that the Sudan is part of the Arab League, the Sudanese Arabs and the Arab Janjaweed sure are Arab enough for the Arab League.

I was actually referring to common law states rather than civil law states. However, an example in one situation does not mean that it is applicable in the next. International law works by treaty and agreement. And the ECJ and the European Council, like you've mentioned, are only composed and hold jurisdiction over member states. They would never do anything with a state like Israel, or Asian states, etc.

So you've changed always to sometimes then?

Israel did sign up to the UN Charter didn't it?

What were these people doing in Israel anyway apart from eating launch?

Actually, they arent arab, they are african. They are just called arab(I forget why).
:rolleyes:


Jinjaweed IS Arab militia.

I think everyone needs a quick history lesson. The State of Israel was established by International Law; that being the UN partition of Palestine. The UN alloted the Jews a landmass significantly smaller than what is today the State of Israel and the land contained a Jewish majority population. Also, the land that was going to be a Palestinian state contained a nice population of Jews and they had the choice to either stay in the future Palestinian state or move. However, the surrounding Arab countries decided to DEFY international law and invade the new State of Israel with the goal of annihilation. The Jews ended up getting more land after they won the DEFENSIVE war against the invading Arabs. A common myth is that the Jews mysteriously appeared in Palestine and took the land of those living there. That is simply a false statement. Jews had always maintained a presence in the land of "Palestine" (that name was given to the land by the Romans and only resurface when the British were alloted the Mandate after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI) in cities such as Sefad, Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. We also cant ignore the fact that Tel Aviv amongst many others were Jewish cities founded by Jews that had emigrated from persecution in Europe in the 19th century to the Ottoman Empire. The rest of the land that is now present day Israel was also taken in DEFENSIVE wars. The Arabs think that they can amass armies, try to invade, and when they lose, it can all go back to how it was. WRONG. Israel needs to maintain defensible borders so that they can be protected from Arab Aggression. One more thing..the West Bank was part of Jordan after '48 and was lost by Jordan after the 6 day war. Thats when the term Palestinian was coined. Ps. Don't forget the One Million Jews expelled and exiled from their homes of more than 2,000 years by almost every major Middle Eastern country after Israel was established.

Returning briefly to the original question...
(though I am interested in the current debate)

I wouldn't regard the killing of an American citizen as part of a Palestinian suicide attack against Israel as an attack against America at all.

Was the killing of British citizen Thomas Hurndall by the Israeli army (not an independenly working suicide bomber, but the official national army of the State of Israel) an attack by Israel on the UK? No! Of course not!

Just as the killing of several Spanish citizens by an IRA bomb in Omagh several years ago was not an attack on Spain. To suggest otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

So you've changed always to sometimes then?

Israel did sign up to the UN Charter didn't it?

I didn't say anything about always or sometimes.

Regarding the UN Charter, I think I see what you're getting at, but it isn't that relevent that Israel did join the UN. Many states, Israel included, that have common law, as oppossed to Western nations, draw a dichotomy between international law and state law. Whereas Western nations, particularly in Europe, believe that a single law made up of both state and international law applies. Israel applies international law when and if it doesn't conflict with its soverign laws. In short, for Israel and many other states, the law at home takes precedence over international law. Those are just the two dominating theories on international law as states apply them. International law as we have it today is a pretty new concept and its relatively flexible.

To get back on topic of Daniel Wultz (may he rest in peace)...he was a fellow classmate of mine and was a 10th grader at the David Posnack Hebrew Day School. I graduated from there in 2004 and now attend the University of Florida. For all of the terrorist apologists out there, here is a link to WorldNetDaily which quotes those responsible for the attack which took his innocent life. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49952 But since most of you might not check out the link, I'll provide you with some excerpts: *Daniel Wultz, a Florida teenager lying in a coma after being critically injured last week in a suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant, is the "best target combination we can dream of – American and Zionist," Abu Nasser, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the groups responsible for the deadly blast, told WorldNetDaily.* *Abu Ayman, a leader of the Islamic Jihad, which also took responsibility for the April 17 bombing in which Wultz was injured, threatened all Americans and Jews worldwide and expressed regret Wultz is still alive.*

I didn't say anything about always or sometimes.
Your words:

And the civil law of soverign states always takes precedent over international law.


Regarding the UN Charter, I think I see what you're getting at, but it isn't that relevent that Israel did join the UN...snip blah blah blah

No mate, you sign up to the UN Charter you abide by it. Simple as that.

The Occupation is illegal under international law (as defined in the Charter) and the State of Israel is breaking that.

I'll go back to the original question too for a moment I guess and outline why I think it is an attack on Israel and the United States.

1. The terrorist groups that commit suicide bombings have stated in their charters that they are dedicated to attacks on the West and the United States.

2. The terrorist groups that commit suicide bombings on Israel have committed deliberate suicide bombings on specific US civilian targets in the Middle East, including US targets in Israel.

3. Because the United States is considered to be part of the enemy Zionist West and these suicide bombings are not precisely targeted at a single person or place, but rather indiscriminate, it only logically follows that if they were targetting the enemy in general, and they consider the United States the enemy, then they were targeting the United States as well.

4. Killing as a result of negligent criminal action renders the party responsible. For example, if you have an illegal firearm, you try to shoot an animal, and then you miss and kill a man, you can be charged with manslaughter or murder. The same can be applied to a suicide bomber, who is making a criminal terrorist attack on civilians, who kills a civilian from another country. Keep in mind, this was not an accidental killing, but an intentional an indiscriminate murder of any civilians in the vicinity.

No mate, you sign up to the UN Charter you abide by it. Simple as that.

The Occupation is illegal under international law (as defined in the Charter) and the State of Israel is breaking that.

No mate, you should familiarize yourself with monist and dualist theories of international law. Its not as black and white as you think it is.

And an occupation illegal under international law doesn't mean squat unless the State:

1. Adheres to international law.
2. Places equal emphasis on international law as they do on state law.

Israel recognizes Israeli law over international law in this case, in which case under dualist theory it is null and void.

EDIT:

And just to clarify, the occupation isn't in question. Its the settlements that are in question. And Israel never ratified the treaties that would have binded it to an agreement under international law regarding such settlements.

No mate, you should familiarize yourself with monist and dualist theories of international law. Its not as black and white as you think it is.

And an occupation illegal under international law doesn't mean squat unless the State:

1. Adheres to international law.
2. Places equal emphasis on international law as they do on state law.

Israel recognizes Israeli law over international law in this case, in which case under dualist theory it is null and void.

Link? Or Source?

Then why bother signing the UN Charter? For kicks?

Then why bother signing the UN Charter? For kicks?

Like I stated, its pretty much only Western nations that have a monist approach to international law. You're probably from a Western nation, so that is what you're exposed to and familiar with, so when you hear that not all nations have the black and white view of it and its more flexible it comes as a shock. That is what you get in Western media.

Lots of nations sign the UN Charter to participate in the global community. Not for kicks, but for all of the goodies that come with it. Most nations have no problem adhering to international law 99.9% of the time, and because international law is such an abstract thing, they can simply give it a dualist interpretation when it conflicts with soverign law.

And I posted this in the previous edit, but I don't want anyone to miss it. International law hasn't declared the occupation illegal. It has declared the settlements illegal. And this shouldn't matter, because Israel never ratified and entered into the treaties regarding settlements in occupied territories.

This is essentially like one group of nations making up some laws and trying to lord it over another nation, then when the other nation doesn't follow saying "neener neener, you're breaking the law." Thats not how international law works, and most people who are familiar with it recognize that Israel actually manages to skirt on the outside of international law most of the time rather than actually violating it.

Link? Or Source?

Then why bother signing the UN Charter? For kicks?


Well, considering the track record of the UN (china on human rights, Iran on non-proliferation committees, etc) and the fact that they have a long history of being anti-Israel, for example Waldheim, the Secretary General during the six day war ordered the UN emergency forces (UNEF) to leave the buffer zone b/w Israel and Egypt WITHOUT consulting the general assembly and let the Egyptians prepare for war, I would say that the only reason anyone joins the UN is "for kicks"

It's so nice to see Abused Child Syndrome manifest on a national scale.

Don't worry, if the Palestinians ever get their own country they'll find someone to oppress too ;)

I forgot to mention that Waldheim was also an Austrian that served in a Nazi military unit that was convicted of war crimes in WWII. Kudos to Tropical.

Like I stated, its pretty much only Western nations that have a monist approach to international law. You're probably from a Western nation, so that is what you're exposed to and familiar with, so when you hear that not all nations have the black and white view of it and its more flexible it comes as a shock. That is what you get in Western media.

Lots of nations sign the UN Charter to participate in the global community. Not for kicks, but for all of the goodies that come with it. Most nations have no problem adhering to international law 99.9% of the time, and because international law is such an abstract thing, they can simply give it a dualist interpretation when it conflicts with soverign law.

And I posted this in the previous edit, but I don't want anyone to miss it. International law hasn't declared the occupation illegal. It has declared the settlements illegal. And this shouldn't matter, because Israel never ratified and entered into the treaties regarding settlements in occupied territories.

This is essentially like one group of nations making up some laws and trying to lord it over another nation, then when the other nation doesn't follow saying "neener neener, you're breaking the law." Thats not how international law works, and most people who are familiar with it recognize that Israel actually manages to skirt on the outside of international law most of the time rather than actually violating it.

Laws are not there for you to pick and chose from to see which suits you the best at certain times. You take the good with the bad. You break one, you get punished (theoretically).

When you sign up to a set of laws, you get the whole package. If you don't want to agree to it, you don't sign it in the first place. International law, really is quite simple when you break it down. Its like national law in the way it is applied, only on a larger scale.

No, Israel manages to 'avoid' international law... by simply... not... obeying it. And no one does a thing about it... becuase of the the 'special friendship' it has with the US.

The settlements/occupation are seen as two sides of the same coin so trying to dodge around that, is really irrelevant.

No, Israel manages to 'avoid' international law... by simply... not... obeying it. And no one does a thing about it... becuase of the the 'special friendship' it has with the US.

The settlements/occupation are seen as two sides of the same coin so trying to dodge around that, is really irrelevant.

Funny that Mongooses keeps mentioning International Law. Were the Oslo Accords not international law? There were more Israeli's killed in the five years AFTER Oslo than in the fifteen year prior to Oslo combined.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they could have had one. In 2000, Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel met with Arafat and Clinton in Washington and he offered the Palis 98% of all territory they were asking for but the offer was rejected, without a counter offer. A few months later, the 2nd intifada started.

If the Palestinians stop killing innocents, stopped preaching hate, and firing rockets into Israel from civilian neighborhoods then Israel would not retaliate, would not be forced to have checkpoints to stop bombers, and Palestinian casualties would not occur.

No, Israel manages to 'avoid' international law... by simply... not... obeying it. And no one does a thing about it... becuase of the the 'special friendship' it has with the US.

The settlements/occupation are seen as two sides of the same coin so trying to dodge around that, is really irrelevant.

Funny that Mongooses keeps mentioning International Law. Were the Oslo Accords not international law? There were more Israeli's killed in the five years AFTER Oslo than in the fifteen year prior to Oslo combined.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they could have had one. In 2000, Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel met with Arafat and Clinton in Washington and he offered the Palis 98% of all territory they were asking for but the offer was rejected, without a counter offer. A few months later, the 2nd intifada started.

If the Palestinians stop killing innocents, stopped preaching hate, and firing rockets into Israel from civilian neighborhoods then Israel would not retaliate, would not be forced to have checkpoints to stop bombers, and Palestinian casualties would not occur.

It also wouldnt hurt if the Palestinians stopped teaching their children how to kill Jews and started teaching them how to farm and work and actually build an economy that isnt based on international handouts. (which they are not currently getting because 75% of them voted in a terrorist government)

Laws are not there for you to pick and chose from to see which suits you the best at certain times. You take the good with the bad. You break one, you get punished (theoretically).

Dualist theory doesn't state that you pick and choose. It states that they are both applicable unless one comes into conflict with another. Thus, lets assume that Israeli law states that settlements are legal, while international law says they are not, dualist theory (which is perfectly acceptable, and widely used) weighs out in favor of Israel. Thats the way international law works in many cases. This is one of the reasons Israel doesn't have much punative action taken toward it, because the international community recognizes its superior soverign law.

When you sign up to a set of laws, you get the whole package. If you don't want to agree to it, you don't sign it in the first place. International law, really is quite simple when you break it down. Its like national law in the way it is applied, only on a larger scale.

No, international law is not national law on a larger scale. National law is applied in a vertical way, from the top down. The state creates it, and it applies to all. International law is horizontal, it is entered into by treaty or contract, and can be withdrawn from at any time. If a state does not want to follow international law, it can simply withdraw from it. Furthermore, one actually as a physical landmass, with resources, and a state to back it, thus is much more powerful (soverign law) while the other is an abstract political entity (international law). The two are radically different. The more you go on, the more you demonstrate that you don't know WTF you're talking about here.

No, Israel manages to 'avoid' international law... by simply... not... obeying it. And no one does a thing about it... becuase of the the 'special friendship' it has with the US.

Israel doesn't have to obey laws that don't apply to it, like treaties it didn't ratify. That is how international law works. Unless Israel entered into the specific treaties and agreements,then they don't apply to Israel. While the rest of the world may have agreed, that means they only apply to the rest of the world. International law is done, as I've stated, horizontally by treaty, agreement, etc.

The settlements/occupation are seen as two sides of the same coin so trying to dodge around that, is really irrelevant.

No they aren't. The occupation isn't even questioned as being illegal. Only Palestinians refer to it collectively as "illegal occupation." That must be why you're confused about the term. There is a military presence in the territories that were taken in the six day war which is perfectly legal under international law.

The settlements on the other hand violate the treaties that Israel never ratified in article 49 of the Geneva convention, those are the only things that are said to be against international law. This article states that the forceful transfer of natives out of the area is illegal, and the forceful transfer of your own citizens into the area for settlement is illegal.

On that note, take into consideration this. Many legal experts don't believe Israeli settlements violate article 49;

1. Because there has been no forceful explusion of Palestinians from the occupied territories, nor have Israelis been forcefully imported.
2. Because Israel never ratified the treaty to begin with.

4. Killing as a result of negligent criminal action renders the party responsible. For example, if you have an illegal firearm, you try to shoot an animal, and then you miss and kill a man, you can be charged with manslaughter or murder. The same can be applied to a suicide bomber, who is making a criminal terrorist attack on civilians, who kills a civilian from another country. Keep in mind, this was not an accidental killing, but an intentional an indiscriminate murder of any civilians in the vicinity.

The same goes for Israel's airstrikes, then, which almost always kill more people than the suicide bomber, and most of the people killed are usually civilians, not to mention the knocking down of Palestinian houses and also ruining of Palestinian farms.

Funny that Mongooses keeps mentioning International Law. Were the Oslo Accords not international law? There were more Israeli's killed in the five years AFTER Oslo than in the fifteen year prior to Oslo combined.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they could have had one.

Not only that, but currently Israel is disbanding the questionable settlements and thus complying with whatever international law isn't even actually applicable to the state.

But the terrorist sympathizers seem to ignore that totally. A lot of them still think Israel bulldozes houses and cry "human rights violation!"

I wonder what they are going to do in a few years when Israel finalizes its boarders and Palestine rots in poverty without Israel giving it aid and collecting taxes for it.

The same goes for Israel's airstrikes, then, which almost always kill more people than the suicide bomber, and most of the people killed are usually civilians, not to mention the knocking down of Palestinian houses and also ruining of Palestinian farms.

Do you know what "negligent criminal action" is? Israeli military airstrikes don't fit that criteria, but illegal terrorist suicide bombers do. Its a legal issue, and we have the rule of law.

The fact is, suicide bombers target civilians, Israeli airstrikes go for military targets. The intention is different, and that makes a world of difference according to the rule of law.

It also wouldnt hurt if the Palestinians stopped teaching their children how to kill Jews and started teaching them how to farm and work and actually build an economy that isnt based on international handouts. (which they are not currently getting because 75% of them voted in a terrorist government)

Wow, another brilliant generalization bordering on racism. You sound like the entire Palestinian existence is centered on insurgency and terrorism and that not a single one does anything productive. Of course let's just forget to mention that the Palestinian farmers get fucked because even when they don't get arable land jacked from them by Israeli settlers, the blockade keeps them from selling their produce in markets and thus fucks their economy even more than it all ready is.

:rolleyes:

Do you know what "negligent criminal action" is? Israeli military airstrikes don't fit that criteria, but illegal terrorist suicide bombers do. Its a legal issue, and we have the rule of law.

The fact is, suicide bombers target civilians, Israeli airstrikes go for military targets. The intention is different, and that makes a world of difference according to the rule of law.

Helicopter gunship strikes in civilian areas on houses which 'contain military targets' are no worse that Palestinian suicide attacks in my humble opinion.

Wow, another brilliant generalization bordering on racism. You sound like the entire Palestinian existence is centered on insurgency and terrorism and that not a single one does anything productive. Of course let's just forget to mention that the Palestinian farmers get fucked because even when they don't get arable land jacked from them by Israeli settlers, the blockade keeps them from selling their produce in markets and thus fucks their economy even more than it all ready is.

Its actually not racism, its a valid cultural belief set. Before the formation of the State of Israel, there was no single body of Arabs that collectively identified as "Palestinians." The very ethnicity of the "Palestinian" developed out of opposition to Israel, and many do share a hostility toward Israel as a part of their culture. It isn't racist because it isn't a race issue, its a valid ethnographic fact.

And why are we blaming Israel for Palestinian farmers getting fucked?

1. Why should Israel, a soverign nation, allow non-citizens into its State to sell goods to begin with? No other nation has that obligation. A double standard!

2. Why isn't Jordan helping Palestine? NO immigrants are allowed to cross boarders into Jordan, yet Israel still employs thousands of Palestinians, letting them live and work in Israel, travel back and forth, etc. the only ones in the Middle East helping the Palestinians are those "evil Jews." The Arabs that are suppossed to be their friends, and their Arab neigbors, have totally snubbed them.

Helicopter gunship strikes in civilian areas on houses which 'contain military targets' are no worse that Palestinian suicide attacks in my humble opinion.

Your humble opinion is devoid of the rule of law.

Your humble opinion is devoid of the rule of law.

Justice and the law are two different things. I prefer justice to the law.

Its clearly an attack on both, since the US is fanatical about supporting israel.

Justice and the law are two different things. I prefer justice to the law.

The suicide bombers agree with you.

The suicide bombers agree with you.

And why do you think the law is superior to justice?

And why do you think the law is superior to justice?

You're just confusing your subjective opinion with "justice." Both are abstract, unprovable concepts. The fact is, the intention of the group you support is to murder Jewish civilians, while the intent of the group I support is to destroy terrorist targets. Because you can call your view "justice", i.e. the support for the murder of civilians, demonstrates to me that it is an abstract concept with no value, and that law is superior.

The same goes for Israel's airstrikes, then, which almost always kill more people than the suicide bomber, and most of the people killed are usually civilians, not to mention the knocking down of Palestinian houses and also ruining of Palestinian farms.
Do you know why any civilians are killed by Israel's air strikes? Because their military hides behind the population.

The same goes for Israel's airstrikes, then, which almost always kill more people than the suicide bomber, and most of the people killed are usually civilians, not to mention the knocking down of Palestinian houses and also ruining of Palestinian farms.


Israel only uses force when they are attacked or when there is known terrorist activity going on. Just because the Palestinian terrorists hide their weapons factories in and fire missiles at Israel from civilian neighborhoods doesnt mean they are immune to attack. The blood is on the hands of the terrorists, who constantly use their own people as human shields.

A perfect example of this is the recent mass firing of Kassam missiles at Israel from Gaza (which is absent of Jews). The missiles are being fired from civilian neighborhoods in the northern Gaza strip. Many Palestinians have actually been protesting the launching of these missiles by the terrorists because they dont want to be the next civilian casualty.

The terrorists know that when they fire the missiles, Israel will retaliate against them. Israel doesnt TARGET civilians, they target launch sites that happen to be in civilian neighborhoods. Israel can not and will not just sit back and let the Palesitians kill Jews by hiding behind human shields.

A perfect example of this is the recent mass firing of Kassam missiles at Israel from Gaza (which is absent of Jews). The missiles are being fired from civilian neighborhoods in the northern Gaza strip. Many Palestinians have actually been protesting the launching of these missiles by the terrorists because they dont want to be the next civilian casualty.

Its good that you mentioned that, because it reminds me of something. Palestinians are afraid of their own "freedom fighters" as they are anything, because the terrorists routinely shoot, beat, torture, and kill Palestinains. The terrorists don't just terrorize Israel, but they terrorize the average Palestinian population with extreme violence.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? I stated that there is no 'oops' when they kill an American as well, as that is part of their goal too. ..

Theres few "oops" all round, you'll find. I suggest you're stretching.



Illegal according to whom? Palestinians? International law? National civil law, according to most soverign states, either takes precedent or runs parallel to international law. The fact is, if Israel doesn't say its illegal, then there is no basis to say its illegal...

The occupation is illegal as are the settlements. By international law. Contrary to what you or the conspiracy theory people think, Israel does not write international law.


The fact is, Jews were persecuted by Christians and Muslims. Saying that there were periods of enlightenement or that they fared better under Muslim rule, although true, does not change the fact that Muslims were brutal oppressors and forcefully converted and murdered Jews. You've just slipped into fallacious reasoning to cover up the bloody history of Arabs and Islam....

But generally speaking they were not brutal oppressors but (relatively speaking) tolerant - far more so than christians. Where precisely did I try to cover anything up, by the way? Or is this just another stock false accusation from your arsenal...?


We're talking about the jangaweed Arabs. They ARE in fact one mass bloc acting as one; they were hired by the Sudan government as a milita. They are quite united, and as I've stated, are responsible for the current genocide that has claimed more African lives than can be attributed to Israeli killing in the entire history of the state.....

And their actions have nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion of Palestinan Arabs. When we have some genius trying to tell us that its all really a misunderstanding, nothing bad is happening and that Sudan is a shining light in North Africa, we'll have a go at them. I'll even let you get the first post in.

And the civil law of soverign states always takes precedent over international law......

The occupied territories are not part of Israel. Nor does Israel try to apply Israeli domestic law there, as it would afford the Palestinians more protection than they currently enjoy under military rule.

international community saying (or withholding its say, in many cases) that the settlements are illegal (not the occupation) does not make it so under international law due to the way international law works. Sorry.......

You are obviously confused. The settlements are outside Israeli borders and thus a breach of the Geneva convention. Go look it up.

4. Killing as a result of negligent criminal action renders the party responsible. For example, if you have an illegal firearm, you try to shoot an animal, and then you miss and kill a man, you can be charged with manslaughter or murder. The same can be applied to a suicide bomber, who is making a criminal terrorist attack on civilians, who kills a civilian from another country. Keep in mind, this was not an accidental killing, but an intentional an indiscriminate murder of any civilians in the vicinity........

Yep, and if I bring up a few incidents involving the IDF and Palestinians over the last 30 years I imagine you can, with equal authority, tell me how what just just typed there doesnt apply.

And an occupation illegal under international law doesn't mean squat unless the State:

1. Adheres to international law.
2. Places equal emphasis on international law as they do on state law.........

Like the guy up in court for whatever who says that he refuses to recognise it, or the law, as he follows the principles of Genghis Khan, and his Yurt can be parked where he wills it.

Were the Oslo Accords not international law? There were more Israeli's killed in the five years AFTER Oslo than in the fifteen year prior to Oslo combined..........

Ignoring the settlement building, which increased to its greatest extent after Oslo - the period in which the majority of the West Bank settlers arrived.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they could have had one. In 2000..........

The offer on East Jerusalem was unnacceptable to any Palestinian, and like an idiot Yasser failed to make a counter proposal. One mans lack of grasp of the subtleties rather than anything else.

It also wouldnt hurt if the Palestinians stopped teaching their children how to kill Jews and started teaching them ..........

And there aren't extremist settler schools?


Do you know what "negligent criminal action" is? Israeli military airstrikes don't fit that criteria, but illegal terrorist suicide bombers do. Its a legal issue, and we have the rule of law...........

Ha. I wrote about how you'd excuse Israeli action with other issues in mind but there you go.....


there was no single body of Arabs that collectively identified as "Palestinians." The very ethnicity of the "Palestinian" developed out of opposition to Israel, and many do share a hostility toward Israel as a part of their culture. It isn't racist because it isn't a race issue, its a valid ethnographic fact............

Thats theres no race, but as theres no distinct jewish race either it makes no odds. They are a valid nationality as much as "Israeli" is. Or the Kurds etc.

Attack against Civilization/Humanity.


nail on the head

I cant put it any better

The suicide bombers agree with you.

And they agree with you, too, that the universe exists.

How terroristic of you.

And why are we blaming Israel for Palestinian farmers getting fucked?

1. Why should Israel, a soverign nation, allow non-citizens into its State to sell goods to begin with? No other nation has that obligation. A double standard!

Before the blockade, Israelis had no problems or moral issues with purchashing Palestinian produce and were their biggest clientele. Closing off borders is nothing more than an economic leverage designed to try and crush the Palestinians into complete submission and servility. Which only gives fuel for the terrorists to feed upon.

2. Why isn't Jordan helping Palestine? NO immigrants are allowed to cross boarders into Jordan, yet Israel still employs thousands of Palestinians, letting them live and work in Israel, travel back and forth, etc. the only ones in the Middle East helping the Palestinians are those "evil Jews." The Arabs that are suppossed to be their friends, and their Arab neigbors, have totally snubbed them.

Yet despite being aware that the Palestinians are nothing more than hapless pawns in some Byzantine power game, you and Israel are still more than happy to say "Fuck them" and treat the group collectively as an Al Qaeda cell instead of giving them positive incentives to alienate the Jihadists in their ranks.

On that note, that justification could be applied to say "Why didn't the rest of the African continent help the blacks of South Africa?"

Theres few "oops" all round, you'll find. I suggest you're stretching.

Fallacy, tu quoque. Must I always correct you on your illogical reasoning? Saying "there are few oops all around" doesn't change the fact that the terrorist organization took responsibility for this attack on an American, saying there was no better possible target.

The occupation is illegal as are the settlements. By international law. Contrary to what you or the conspiracy theory people think, Israel does not write international law.

No one said Israel wrote international law. Perhaps you should catch up on the last few pages regarding international law. Israel never ratified treaties regarding settlements.

But generally speaking they were not brutal oppressors but (relatively speaking) tolerant - far more so than christians. Where precisely did I try to cover anything up, by the way? Or is this just another stock false accusation from your arsenal...?

Yes, you're going in circles again. This is still the two wrongs make a right fallacy. If the topic is Muslim oppression, and then you say "but they were nicer than Christians", you've slipped into a logical fallacy. You do this a lot. I pointed out an Arab regime notorious for its opporesion of Jews, and you covered it with a blanket statement of "Arab enlightenement." Please.

And their actions have nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion of Palestinan Arabs. When we have some genius trying to tell us that its all really a misunderstanding, nothing bad is happening and that Sudan is a shining light in North Africa, we'll have a go at them. I'll even let you get the first post in.

No, their actions had to do with the topic at hand. As usual, you jumped in out of context. The topic at hand was not Palestinian Arabs, as much as you'd like it to be. Perhaps you should go back and reread.

The occupied territories are not part of Israel. Nor does Israel try to apply Israeli domestic law there, as it would afford the Palestinians more protection than they currently enjoy under military rule.

I never said they were. Once again, you've literally snipped a sentence of mine in half, and misapplied it. If you want to go back and show me where I said that the occupied territories were part of Israel, go for it.

You are obviously confused. The settlements are outside Israeli borders and thus a breach of the Geneva convention. Go look it up.

No, you're confused about how international law works. Israel never ratified treaties regarding illegal settlements in the Geneva convention. International law is bilateral, not unilateral. States that have dualist approaches to international law, or do not partake in certain aspects of it, are not making breaches of it. While the states that do adhere to it may say "oh, they're violating it", the fact is, it was a law that never applied to Israel to begin with.

And why do people who don't know WTF they're talking about always say "go look it up?" I already stated, in a previous post, that it was article 49 of the Geneva convention, and I outlined what it stated, and why according to international law it never actually applied to Israel. You're essentially just repeating what I've already covered, except incorrectly.

Yep, and if I bring up a few incidents involving the IDF and Palestinians over the last 30 years I imagine you can, with equal authority, tell me how what just just typed there doesnt apply.

Considering that the IDF isn't a criminal organization, it wouldn't apply.

Like the guy up in court for whatever who says that he refuses to recognise it, or the law, as he follows the principles of Genghis Khan, and his Yurt can be parked where he wills it.

You're confusing the way soverign or national laws work with the way international law works. International law works via treaty, it is horizontal or bilateral. It doesn't go from the top down, only countries that engage in it by agreement have to recognize it. Many countries today take no part in international law, and are accused of human rights violations, but certainly don't have any sort of international legal action taken against them. Nor could they. Because international law doesn't work that way.

The offer on East Jerusalem was unnacceptable to any Palestinian, and like an idiot Yasser failed to make a counter proposal. One mans lack of grasp of the subtleties rather than anything else.

It wasn't unacceptable to any Palestinian. It was unacceptable to the terrorist leadership. I've already gone over the entire report from Dennis Ross, the lead negotiator at the Olso accords with you in a previous thread. The fact is, the Palestinian people would have accepted it, as did five major Arab leaders, including the president of Egypt and Jordan. It would have included full and complete right of return for Palestinians to Israel, as well.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000157.html

And there aren't extremist settler schools?

And there you go with another tu quoque fallacy. But to answer, even though this question wasn't directed to me, no. There are no settler terror camps.

Thats theres no race, but as theres no distinct jewish race either it makes no odds. They are a valid nationality as much as "Israeli" is. Or the Kurds etc.

Oh my, another fallacy, ignoratio elenchi. The fact is, no one was talking about if they were a valid nationality. No one said anything even remotely like that. Once again, what you've done is literally snip my quote in half to distort its context and superimpose your own preconceptions. What I did state is that there was no Palestinian ethnicity before Israel, and there wasn't, and that part of the modern Palestinian culture is a hatred toward Israel.

What does that have to do with a valid nationality? Nothing. That is why its the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

All of the apologists say the same thing over and over again, without mentioning facts. Fact: Israel has checkpoints on its borders and has thorough searches of everything being brought in from the terroritories simply because if they didnt, Tel Aviv's streets would be running red with Jewish blood. If the Palestinians denounce terrorism, and actually put an end to it, then there would be no border checkpoints and people would be allowed to move goods freely between Israel and the territories. Without checkpoints and security measures, suicide bombers would easily be able to gain access into Israel and kill Jews.

Also, the "territories" are currently Israeli land. It was land taken in the defensive six day war. After all the surrounding Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel beat back the armies and took the land for a variety of reasons, notably maintaining defensive borders. Should the U.S. give back California and Texas to Mexico? I think not. A common myth is that the Arab can try and try to destroy Israel, and when they LOSE (which they always have, thank G-d) they think things can all be jolly good and go back to normal until their armies are mobilized again. Simply not how the world works guys. You fight, you lose, you suffer the consequences. However, Israel has always been willing to negotiate land for peace and has given back land on several occasions (Sinai to Egypt, Gaza this past summer).

Before the blockade, Israelis had no problems or moral issues with purchashing Palestinian produce and were their biggest clientele. Closing off borders is nothing more than an economic leverage designed to try and crush the Palestinians into complete submission and servility. Which only gives fuel for the terrorists to feed upon.

There isn't a boarder "blockade" right now. And why is it that when Israel closes its boarders, it becomes a "blockade" but when other countries close their boarders its okay? A biased double standard toward Israel again.

Israel will have its boarders finalized soon and then the Palestinians are going to have to deal with their own little country that they'll have to fix up for themselves. They can't pretend like they want to be a soverign nation and at the same time lean on Israel, especially since it is more than likely that they will be considered an enemy state if they have a hostile government like HAMAS.

Yet despite being aware that the Palestinians are nothing more than hapless pawns in some Byzantine power game, you and Israel are still more than happy to say "Fuck them" and treat the group collectively as an Al Qaeda cell instead of giving them positive incentives to alienate the Jihadists in their ranks.

What positive incentives would you suggest? Right now, they can have permits, live in Israel, work in Israel, etc. And as non-citizens, why are we obliged to give them any positive incentives? Are US citizens obliged to give Mexicans incentives to come to the US and work? Or to be happy in Mexico and not immigrate illegally? Do we have to bribe our criminal neighbors not to commit crimes?

Thus, lets assume that Israeli law states that settlements are legal, while international law says they are not, dualist theory (which is perfectly acceptable, and widely used) weighs out in favor of Israel.
If the settlements were legal then they would be under the control of the Israeli State, their land=their sovreignty, yet they are not recognised as Israeli territory internationally. They are recognised as PA lands. Therefore, the Israeli State has no jurisdiction over them as they are not in their land and therefore, internationally, they are in fact illegal.

This is one of the reasons Israel doesn't have much punative action taken toward it, because the international community recognizes its superior soverign law.
No. Simply put, the only reason punitive action is not taken is because it is under the wing of the United States... a veto holding member of the UNSC.



No, international law is not national law on a larger scale. National law is applied in a vertical way, from the top down. The state creates it, and it applies to all. International law is horizontal, it is entered into by treaty or contract, and can be withdrawn from at any time. If a state does not want to follow international law, it can simply withdraw from it.

Has Israel withdrawn from the UN Charter? If not, they are not following International law. If they are not following it, by definition, they are in violation of it.


Israel doesn't have to obey laws that don't apply to it, like treaties it didn't ratify. That is how international law works. Unless Israel entered into the specific treaties and agreements,then they don't apply to Israel. While the rest of the world may have agreed, that means they only apply to the rest of the world. International law is done, as I've stated, horizontally by treaty, agreement, etc.
Does Israel recognise the UN Charter?


Only Palestinians refer to it collectively as "illegal occupation."
Think again.

There is a military presence in the territories that were taken in the six day war which is perfectly legal under international law.
Land taken and held/occupied/colonised in war is illegal under international law, and has been I think since the end of WW1. Wars of conquest don't go down well anymore really....

So is your overall point then, that because Israel can just get away with such actions, they should? Morality notwithstanding?

No more so than referring to a man murdered by a subhuman terrorist for having lunch with his father as "collateral dammage in the larger war against the illegal occupation."
Yes it was. Please refrain from using such a blatantly offensive characterization in the future.

Unless it was a very American restaurant I'd say it's an attack soley against Israel.

i'd have to agree.

Fallacy, tu quoque. Must I always correct you on your illogical reasoning? Saying "there are few oops all around" doesn't change the fact that the terrorist organization took responsibility for this attack on an American, saying there was no better possible target.
.

A criminal act, with which you then seek to besmirch the Palestinian drive for self determination.


No one said Israel wrote international law. Perhaps you should catch up on the last few pages regarding international law. Israel never ratified treaties regarding settlements..

It doesnt matter whether it did or did not, it still applies. Hence the likes of Saddam can be tried, or Milosovich. Endlessly repeating your propaganda/mistaken belief will change nada.


Yes, you're going in circles again. This is still the two wrongs make a right fallacy. If the topic is Muslim oppression, and then you say "but they were nicer than Christians", you've slipped into a logical fallacy. You do this a lot. I pointed out an Arab regime notorious for its opporesion of Jews, and you covered it with a blanket statement of "Arab enlightenement." Please...

I'm countering your overstated rhetoric with Historical context, my lad. Thats the whole sum of it.


Considering that the IDF isn't a criminal organization, it wouldn't apply....

Judging by the fear of prosecution some of its members are displaying, some could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

It wasn't unacceptable to any Palestinian. It was unacceptable to the terrorist leadership. I've already gone over the entire report from Dennis Ross, the lead negotiator at the Olso accords with you in a previous thread. The fact is, the Palestinian people would have accepted it, as did five major Arab leaders, including the president of Egypt and Jordan. It would have included full and complete right of return for Palestinians to Israel, as well.....


"But for Palestinians to get all the territory that had been under Arab control before the war of 1967 would mean getting a) all of what we now think of as the West Bank; b) all of East Jerusalem (which some consider part of the West Bank); and c) all of the walled "Old City" that lies between East and West Jerusalem. Barak never offered any of those things—not at Camp David, not at Taba."

http://www.slate.com/?id=2064500




And there you go with another tu quoque fallacy. But to answer, even though this question wasn't directed to me, no. There are no settler terror camps......

"Extremist" was the word I used. Whats that you were saying about distorting again?

I suppose the "Hesder Yeshivot" and the famous excesses of the Givati Regiment are just fantasy too.....



, and that part of the modern Palestinian culture is a hatred toward Israel.
......

Hardly unique between occupier and occupied is it?


the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

First year phillosophy eh? .how's it going?

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]1. Because there has been no forceful explusion of Palestinians from the occupied territories [QUOTE]


my dear,
that is either a lie, or you've made a terrible, unfortunate mistake. In the 1948 nakba, hundreds upon hundreds of Palestinian families were forcefully expelled from their homes, and left to seek refuge in other places, either in the parts of Palestine left to the people of Palestine, or in neighbouring countries - Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

RE: Palestinians expelled
They were not expelled. They fled for one very good reason - the Arabs were about to invade, and they didn't want to get caught in a war zone. They planned to leave, then once the Arab armies had defeated the Jews, they would go back.
Of course, the Arabs LOST, and they didn't go back.

RE: Question at hand
I'm not sure. If this IS an attack on America, then China is also a victim of Palestinian suicide bombings. Source: a poster at my school of suicide bombing victims. At least five of the people on there have very Chinese names AND have no picture - not as easy to get a picture for a Chinese visiting Israel as it would be for a native Israeli citizen.
And if you say that America should retaliate against Palestine, then so should China.
Hmm... Palestinian terrorists v. People's Liberation Army... can anyone say "squish"?

My question of how it can be justified that Arab Janjaweed (which are recognized as Arab by every organization on Earth EXCEPT UN Abassadorship) are not Arab still has not been answered.
ok, fine they're arab, let it go

RE: Palestinians expelled
They were not expelled. They fled for one very good reason - the Arabs were about to invade, and they didn't want to get caught in a war zone. They planned to leave, then once the Arab armies had defeated the Jews, they would go back.
Of course, the Arabs LOST, and they didn't go back."?

And the occassional bomb or shooting from the Irgun, or a large scale "hint" by men of the Haggannah had nothing to do with it at all...