NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482094109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

You see everyone!!! All the militants have to do is reognize Israel, lay down their guns, and stop firing missiles at Israel and the violence will stop. As long as there are no terrorist attacks against Israelis, the violence will stop and negotiations can take place. The ball is in the Palestinians court now....

You see everyone!!! All the militants have to do is reognize Israel, lay down their guns, and stop firing missiles at Israel and the violence will stop.

Exactly. If the Palestinians say exactly what Israel wants, the IDF doesn't demolish Palestinian homes with artillery. This hardly seems like "negotiations".

Exactly. If the Palestinians say exactly what Israel wants, the IDF doesn't demolish Palestinian homes with artillery. This hardly seems like "negotiations".
Fucking Isrealis. How dare they demand that the Palestinians say "we won't send 14 year old girls with bombs strapped to themselves to shopping malls to kill dozens of people." I know what you mean. I can't stand that Isreal won't at least meet them halfway like, "okay, you can blow up buses but no discos" or something.

Fucking Isrealis. How dare they demand that the Palestinians say "we won't send 14 year old girls with bombs strapped to themselves to shopping malls to kill dozens of people." I know what you mean. I can't stand that Isreal won't at least meet them halfway like, "okay, you can blow up buses but no discos" or something.

When have the Palestinians sent a 14 year old girl to blow up a shopping "mall"? Just as a matter of interest.....

Fucking Isrealis. How dare they demand that the Palestinians say "we won't send 14 year old girls with bombs strapped to themselves to shopping malls to kill dozens of people." I know what you mean. I can't stand that Isreal won't at least meet them halfway like, "okay, you can blow up buses but no discos" or something.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian terrorists are any better. What I am saying is that this is hardly the easy road to peace that the thread starter seems to think it is. Try not to read things into my posts that actually aren't there.

When have the Palestinians sent a 14 year old girl to blow up a shopping "mall"? Just as a matter of interest.....
THey've done it before with the blessing of the parents. It reminds me of Golda Meir's quote "We won't have peace with the Arabs until they learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews."

They dont' send so many 14 year old girls as they do teenage boys, but it's the same thing. The animals send children to kill massive amounts of civilians. They even attack schools intentionally.

When have the Palestinians sent a 14 year old girl to blow up a shopping "mall"? Just as a matter of interest.....
I was pulling that out of my ass, but they have certainly done things like that. I remember a specific event when they sent a 16 year old girl to blow up a supermarket and I remember a 15 year old boy they sent to blow up something, but he was caught at the border.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian terrorists are any better. What I am saying is that this is hardly the easy road to peace that the thread starter seems to think it is. Try not to read things into my posts that actually aren't there.
I'll try not to, but I didn't in this case. I just read what you wrote - I can't know exactly what you meant. What it read like was, "Damn those Isrealis for only dealing with the Palestinians when they do or say what the Isrealis want them to." In the context of this thread the Isrealis have stopped shelling the Palestinians because a major group of terrorists have said they are willing to negotiate. I thought that was a stupid sentiment. If that's not what you meant, my apologies bu, again, I can only reply to whet you type, not what you are actually thinking.

I'll try not to, but I didn't in this case. I just read what you wrote - I can't know exactly what you meant. What it read like was, "Damn those Isrealis for only dealing with the Palestinians when they do or say what the Isrealis want them to." In the context of this thread the Isrealis have stopped shelling the Palestinians because a major group of terrorists have said they are willing to negotiate. I thought that was a stupid sentiment. If that's not what you meant, my apologies bu, again, I can only reply to whet you type, not what you are actually thinking.

Heh. I probably should have worded it a bit clearer, looking back.

THey've done it before with the blessing of the parents. It reminds me of Golda Meir's quote "We won't have peace with the Arabs until they learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews."

They dont' send so many 14 year old girls as they do teenage boys, but it's the same thing. The animals send children to kill massive amounts of civilians. They even attack schools intentionally.

Just one then. One example.

And when it comes to schools and targeting anything or one named "IDF" would be best advised to be very very quiet....

I was pulling that out of my ass, but they have certainly done things like that. I remember a specific event when they sent a 16 year old girl to blow up a supermarket and I remember a 15 year old boy they sent to blow up something, but he was caught at the border.

16 year old girl then. When? Where?

*looks at the Isreal-Palestine conflict

"See kids: that's what oppression and power can lead to, so remember: never accept a position where you have power over others or where others have power over you."

They dont' send so many 14 year old girls as they do teenage boys, but it's the same thing. The animals send children to kill massive amounts of civilians. They even attack schools intentionally.

Who kills the children ?

According to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group, 603 Palestinian children were killed since the start of the second Intifada; 529 (87.7%) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed, and they have ambiguous data on 31 children others.

Meanwhile, Israeli children killed by Palestinians are below 100.

The difference is that while Israel has tanks, helicopters and bombers, Palestinians have nothing but their own lives. And that while Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of their historical lands, Israel is still occupying and trying to annex part of the 22% remaining land, in violation of international laws, UN charters, UN resolutions and La Haye international court decision.

I don't support at all the suicide bombers, but don't forget there is an occupied land and an occupation force, don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing, don't forget there are some who want more than 78% while some accept 22%.

16 year old girl then. When? Where?


No problem, but before you read the list which includes kids as young as 11, I'm curious. This is news to you? You're not denying this kind of thing happens, right? By happens, I mean all the time. I thought it was just common knowledge. Anyhoo...

▪ April 2005: A 15-year-old Palestinian carrying five pipe bombs was arrested by soldiers at the Hawara checkpoint outside of Nablus when he attempted to detonate one of the bombs near them. Soldiers' suspicions were aroused when the youth reached the checkpoint wearing a coat despite the hot weather. The soldiers stopped him and asked him to remove his coat; he lit a match in an attempt to detonate one of the bombs but dropped it when a soldier aimed his weapon at him. Inside the coat soldiers found four other pipe bombs. (Jpost.com)

▪ February 2005: A 15-year-old Palestinian was arrested at the Hawara checkpoint outside of Nablus, after he tried to smuggle an explosive belt in his bag. A homemade weapon was also found in his bag, in addition to 20 bullets. The youth raised the suspicion of one of the soldiers. During a search of his belongings, a ready to be used bomb-belt was discovered.

▪ March 2004: A 14-year-old Palestinian was stopped before he could blow himself up at the Hawara checkpoint outside of Nablus. The quick thinking of paratroopers at the checkpoint stopped Husam Abdu, 14, who was wearing a belt of explosives containing eight kilograms of explosives, plus bolts and screws.

The boy was standing in line with other Palestinians, some 20 meters from the spot where they are checked by the soldiers. The soldiers noticed him suddenly pushing out of line and spotted a suspicious bulge under his clothes. They ordered him to stop. The soldiers took cover behind concrete barricades, pointed their guns at him, and told him to remove his shirt. The explosives belt was then visible. Many of the Palestinians waiting in line meanwhile fled the scene. A police remote-controlled robot was brought in, carrying large scissors. The soldiers then gave the boy instructions how to cut the belt off his body.

The boy, who had learning disabilities and was teased in school, said he wanted to be a hero. He said his terrorist handlers promised him that his mother would receive about $20, and that the money was supposed to go to his mother. He was also promised to receive 72 virgins in paradise if he became a "jihad" martyr and died while killing Israelis.

▪ March 2004: An 11-year-old Palestinian boy, Abdullah Kuran, was stopped at the Hawara checkpoint with explosives stashed in several bags. He was supposed to pass through checkpoint and hand them to a woman waiting on the other side for five shekels. Unaware that one of the bags contained a 10-kilo bomb, he was stopped by soldiers who discovered it during a routine inspection.

A military policewoman at the checkpoint spotted wires protruding from the bag and stopped Abdullah. The explosive belt was packed with nuts and bolts, which militants use to make bombs deadlier, and connected to a cellular telephone. When Kuran's dispatchers saw he had been stopped, they attempted to detonate the bomb by cellphone ― i.e. to use the youth as a homicide bomber, without his knowledge ― but failed.

▪ February 2004: Three Palestinian boys, ages 13, 14 and 16, were arrested at the Jalameh roadblock. The three had in their possession makeshift firearms, and admitted their intent to carry out a suicide attack in Afula. They told investigators that they had been recruited by a local Islamic Jihad official, and left a letter requesting that no one mourn for them because they would become shaheeds. The boys were identified as Jaffer Hussein, 13, Tarek Abu Mahsen, 14, and Ibrahim Suafta, 16, all from the West Bank village of Tubas.

▪ January 2003: Two Palestinian brothers, aged 14 and 17, infiltrated the Israeli settlement of Netzarim armed with knives. The two were lightly wounded prior to their capture.

▪ January 2003: Three Palestinian youths aged 15 and 16 were shot by security forces who spotted them as they attempted to enter Elei Zahav. Security forces found knives on the bodies.

▪ July 2002: Two boys, both 11 years old and carrying knives, were apprehended by Israeli security forces near the Dugit outpost. They planned to plant a bomb in the area, and one of the youths stated that he wished to commit suicide and had hoped to be killed by IDF fire.

▪ July 2002: A 17-year-old boy from Jenin was arrested. He had agreed to carry out a suicide attack within Israel, and was given two options: either a suicide attack in a crowded area using an explosive charge, or to enter Israel with a weapon and open fire at a crowd of civilians. The youth said he preferred the shooting attack, so that his body remain whole for his arrival in heaven. The youth then videotaped himself reciting his last will and testament, holding a Koran and a rifle. The youth attempted twice, unsuccessfully, to enter Israel.

▪ July 2002: Israeli security forces arrested another 15-year-old Palestinian girl who admitted to having agreed to carry out a suicide attack in Israel.

▪ June 2002: A 15-year-old Palestinian girl, arrested for throwing a firebomb at IDF soldiers, admitted during interrogation that she had previously been recruited as a suicide terrorist.

▪ May 2002: A 16-year-old resident of the Askar refugee camp was arrested while traveling in a taxi and carrying an explosive charge. He said that at age 14 he was recruited by Hamas, and he agreed to carry out a suicide attack. On the day of his arrest, he had a haircut, put on the explosive charge, was videotaped reading his last will and testament. Two individuals transported him to Jenin in a taxi, where he was arrested by the IDF.

▪ April 2002: Three Palestinian children, students at a Gaza school, attempted to crawl under the perimeter fence and perpetrate a suicide attack on the Jewish community of Netzarim, only to be shot dead by guards. The three were Ismail Soubh Ibrahim Abu Nada, age 12, Wael Ghazi Moustafa Hamarna, age 13, and Yousef Bassam Yousef Zakout, age 14. The following day, the Hamas Internet site announced that the three, who were sent by the Hamas, each left behind a last will and testament stressing their desire to die a martyr's death.

▪ April 2002: Ahmed Salmi, 16 years old, a resident of Sheikh Radwan/Gaza, was killed by IDF forces near the Dugit outpost. Two pipe bombs, a bottle of gunpowder, and a map of the Gaza Strip on which Israeli towns were marked, were found on his body.

▪ April 2002: A 15-year-old Palestinian girl was arrested in Bethlehem, and confessed that she had been recruited into the Fatah's al-Aqsa Brigades by her uncle, a senior Tanzim activist and bomb manufacturer from Bethlehem. Her uncle promised to supply her with an explosive belt and asked her to recruit additional girls from her school to carry out terrorist attacks. The girl's younger sister discovered her plans and told their mother.

▪ March 2002: Bilal Wagia Kamel Walid-Ali, age 17 from Jenin, was arrested after attempting to perpetrate a suicide attack using a booby-trapped bird cage in the town of Karkur. On the day of the attack, Bilal was given a Kalashnikov rifle and was videotaped taking responsibility for the terrorist attack. He then dressed in an explosive charge and placed another charge in the birdcage. Bilal was then instructed to detonate both charges simultaneously once he arrived at his target area or in the event he was caught. Upon Bilal's arrival in Karkur, he was caught and arrested.

▪ March 2002: Ghassan Mahmoud Naif Steiti, age 17 from the Jenin refugee camp, was arrested in Ramallah. Terrorists from Jenin, with connections in Ramallah, proposed that he perpetrate a suicide attack. Ghassan was then videotaped reciting his last will and testament and taking responsibility for the attack on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Ghassan left in order to perpetrate the suicide attack in Tel-Aviv. On his way he noticed combat helicopters, was afraid that they were following him and postponed the attack. A few days later he attempted to travel to Tel-Aviv in order to carry out the attack, however the road was blocked and he returned to Ramallah. The third time he attempted to perpetrate the attack, he was stopped and arrested.

▪ February 2002: Nora Shalhoob, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl, was killed while charging a group of Israeli soldiers at a military checkpoint with a knife in her hand.

▪ February 2002: A 16-year-old Palestinian boy, resident of Tulkarem, was arrested on his way to carry out a suicide attack on behalf of the Hamas and Fatah. In addition, he mentioned that he had spoken before his entire school class, and announced that he was planning to carry out a terrorist attack and that he might not return. He requested that his classmates leave his seat empty and place flowers on his chair every day. Tanzim supplied him with the explosive charge and directed him to carry out the attack at a bus stop within Israel, between two buses, or to board a crowded bus and blow himself up. During the course of the arrest the youth attempted unsuccessfully to detonate the explosive charge.

▪ February 2002: Tawfiq Hashem Mahamid and Jalal Khalil Mahamid, both age 17 from Jenin, were killed as a result of an explosion in a vehicle near Mei Ami. The two were on their way to carry out a terrorist attack in a Tel Aviv nightclub, under the direction of Islamic Jihad.

▪ August 2001: A 15-year-old Palestinian boy was caught while attempting to carry out a suicide attack in the Beit Shean area. He said that he was a member of Islamic Jihad, all of whose members were prepared to commit suicide attacks. Another youth, also 16 years old, had recruited him to carry out the suicide attack.

▪ July 2001: Jihad Gawdat Mohammad Jarrar, was 17 years old when he was caught on his way to perpetrate a suicide attack in Afula on behalf of the Islamic Jihad. He was carrying a bag that contained an explosive charge, and was instructed to travel to Afula and detonate that explosive charge in a crowded area. He confessed that he started to think of carrying out terrorist attacks at the age of 12. At age 14 he manufactured an improvised rifle and purchased ammunition.

Who kills the children ?

According to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group, 603 Palestinian children were killed since the start of the second Intifada; 529 (87.7%) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed, and they have ambiguous data on 31 children others.

Meanwhile, Israeli children killed by Palestinians are below 100.

The difference is that while Israel has tanks, helicopters and bombers, Palestinians have nothing but their own lives. And that while Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of their historical lands, Israel is still occupying and trying to annex part of the 22% remaining land, in violation of international laws, UN charters, UN resolutions and La Haye international court decision.

I don't support at all the suicide bombers, but don't forget there is an occupied land and an occupation force, don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing, don't forget there are some who want more than 78% while some accept 22%.
Thank you so very, very much for clearly stating essentially what I think. If the Palestinians had a happier life, and helicopters and fighter-bombers, then they'd wage war "normally".

As it stands, as a repressed people, with no real hope of fighting back in an orthodox way, they fight in what I would call an acceptable fashion.

Who kills the children ?

The difference is that while Israel has tanks, helicopters and bombers, Palestinians have nothing but their own lives. And that while Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of their historical lands, Israel is still occupying and trying to annex part of the 22% remaining land, in violation of international laws, UN charters, UN resolutions and La Haye international court decision.



And from where do you get this idea of Palestinian historical land? Palestine didn't even exist until the collapse of the Ottoman empire when the British was given a UN mandate over it. Infact, the word 'Palestine' was first used by the Romans as 'Palaestina'. Palaestina was the new name given to Judea when the Romans kicked all the Jews out, in a bid to severe the Jews' association with it.

The original British Palestine was mostly made up mostly of what is now Jordan, an Arab state which, like all the others, has refused to naturalize Palestinian regugees from what is now Israel.

I would also like to point out that Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank together still does not make up all of ancient Israel.

The Palestians have not accepted to give up anything. After succesive and unsuccesful invasions by numerous Arab states, I think I am justified in saying they have simply realised that they cannot take it by force.

whew, heavy.

And from where do you get this idea of Palestinian historical land? Palestine didn't even exist until the collapse of the Ottoman empire when the British was given a UN mandate over it. Infact, the word 'Palestine' was first used by the Romans as 'Palaestina'. Palaestina was the new name given to Judea when the Romans kicked all the Jews out, in a bid to severe the Jews' association with it.

The original British Palestine was mostly made up mostly of what is now Jordan, an Arab state which, like all the others, has refused to naturalize Palestinian regugees from what is now Israel.

I would also like to point out that Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank together still does not make up all of ancient Israel.

The Palestians have not accepted to give up anything. After succesive and unsuccesful invasions by numerous Arab states, I think I am justified in saying they have simply realised that they cannot take it by force.

whew, heavy.

What I'm not sure of is why don't they just move to somewhere else? One place doesn't want them, so move. Not saying it's an easy feat, but it's easier than waging war and killing your kids over it.

They join together under the name "Palestinian", but really they could be anything they wanted to be. A few hundred could go to Iran, a few hundred to India, really wherever they wanted to.

Thank you so very, very much for clearly stating essentially what I think. If the Palestinians had a happier life, and helicopters and fighter-bombers, then they'd wage war "normally".

As it stands, as a repressed people, with no real hope of fighting back in an orthodox way, they fight in what I would call an acceptable fashion.
I know. Maybe if Ghandi and Mandella and Martin Luther King Jr. had fought like the Palestinians they may have been as sucessful as the Palestinians have been.

I know. Maybe if Ghandi and Mandella and Martin Luther King Jr. had fought like the Palestinians they may have been as sucessful as the Palestinians have been.

Well, Ghandi and MLK were killed. Mandella got divorced.

Well, Ghandi and MLK were killed. Mandella got divorced.
You get killed when you strap a bomb to yourself, too. These were all successful people. They accomplished much or all of their goals. You can look everywhere and see poor people struggle against tyrany - The FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, even the recent revolutions in Bolivia and Venezuela and they were all able to accomplish their goals without strapping bomb belts onto children and adults and having them blow up malls and busses and markets.

They join together under the name "Palestinian", but really they could be anything they wanted to be. A few hundred could go to Iran, a few hundred to India, really wherever they wanted to.

The reason they can't emmigrate to other Arab countries is because they don't want them. It is Arab League policy to keep millions of refugees in camps, most of them 2nd or 3rd generation (born in the camps) so that the anger towards Israel continues. Israel has repeatedly proven itself more than a match for the entire Arab world (militarily), and that can't have the regions governments feeling very secure.

You get killed when you strap a bomb to yourself, too. These were all successful people. They accomplished much or all of their goals.
The same could be said of Castro, Guevara and Lenin, and they did want they desired with a high price of blood...

You can look everywhere and see poor people struggle against tyrany - The FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, even the recent revolutions in Bolivia and Venezuela and they were all able to accomplish their goals without strapping bomb belts onto children and adults and having them blow up malls and busses and markets.
The situations there are rather different, though, aren't they?

You can look everywhere and see poor people struggle against tyrany - The FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, even the recent revolutions in Bolivia and Venezuela and they were all able to accomplish their goals without strapping bomb belts onto children and adults and having them blow up malls and busses and markets.

I don't know about El Salvador. For the Sandinstas, they were attacked by the CIA-trained "contras", and forced to wage war against them. The country suffered so much of the civil war that the people of Nicaragua ended up by voting the Sandinastas out. I don't call that a success, saddly. Well, it's true recent polls show that the Sandinastas are likely to win the next election - but still, it's not a success on non-violence.

For Venezuela, their situation is still very worrying. The opposition failed one coup, but they will try and try again. Until now, Chavistas didn't need any violence. But they weren't attacked as violently and as directly as Palestinian are. If this ever comes to happen, the people of Venezuela will resist with every possible way - including "terrorism".

Resistants against the Nazi in 40-44 did use "terrorism" too: bombings, suicide missions, ... the main difference (which is very important) is that they targeted nazi soldiers or nazi war facilities/convoys, not civilians. But they did kill civilian in "side effects". War is cruel, reckless, inhuman. But there cannot be peace as long as one country is occupying another one.

I don't say suicide bombers are right, but you've to remember that they don't have much other solution - and you've to remember also that they are just a tiny fraction of Palestinian.

So long as the Palestinians keep engaging in terrorism they will suffer. That's just a fact. You pick on a stronger enemy and he'll beat you down. When they wise up and act in a nonviolent manner they will be able to negotiate an acceptable settlement. They will never get everything they want, like right of return, but they'll get what they need, land, resources and security to build their country up. Until then, the blood of the Palestinians is on their own hands.

The same could be said of Castro, Guevara and Lenin, and they did want they desired with a high price of blood...They didn't deliberately target civilians the way Islamic terrorists do.


The situations there are rather different, though, aren't they?
No. Not in anyway that matters.

Here's a fact. If the palestinians were to follow the tactics of ghandi and Mandella they'd have the WORLD behind them. Think about it. During Apartheid millions from all over the world, myself included, marched to protest against the South African government and it eventually worked. I remember the chants:

"Reagan Botha you can't hide. Wecharge you with genocide."

Same thing happend with Ghandi. Why not with the Palestinians? Why do they garner so little world sympathy? Could it be that their tactics are so reprehensible? I think so.

What I'm not sure of is why don't they just move to somewhere else? One place doesn't want them, so move. Not saying it's an easy feat, but it's easier than waging war and killing your kids over it.

They join together under the name "Palestinian", but really they could be anything they wanted to be. A few hundred could go to Iran, a few hundred to India, really wherever they wanted to.


why the hell should they?

why didnt the blacks leave south africa?
why didnt the kurds leave iraq?
wht didnt the catholics leave northern ireland?

its called ethnic cleansing when an enititr population is forced out. :rolleyes:

The same could be said of Castro, Guevara and Lenin, and they did want they desired with a high price of blood...


The situations there are rather different, though, aren't they?
Yeah. One group got their goals of freedom and whatnot done without their cause being hidden under mountains of dead bodies. Terrorists are more murderers than heroes. Sure, they have a cause. Killing children doesn't make the cause more valid. Usually, it has the opposite effect.

[QUOTE=Kilobugya
don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing[/QUOTE]

And the reason Israel maintains such a powerful and expensive military? Because they kept getting invaded! On the day after Israel's creation it was invaded by forces from Arab Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Even without a standing army and with limited weapons, they pushed the Arab forces back out of Israel. The Arabs invaded, albeit unsucessfully, atleast another 5 times. I think the IDF's size is justified.

I don't know about El Salvador. For the Sandinstas, they were attacked by the CIA-trained "contras", and forced to wage war against them. The country suffered so much of the civil war that the people of Nicaragua ended up by voting the Sandinastas out. I don't call that a success, saddly. Well, it's true recent polls show that the Sandinastas are likely to win the next election - but still, it's not a success on non-violence.1. I'm not talking about necessarily being nonviolent. The Sandanistas were able to overthrow a brutal regime without using the kind of tactics that the Palestinians use.
2. Even though they lost their office, they lost it to a vote, not a dictatorship. They went from a military dictatorship to a democracy and they did it without blowing up discos.

For Venezuela, their situation is still very worrying. The opposition failed one coup, but they will try and try again. Until now, Chavistas didn't need any violence. But they weren't attacked as violently and as directly as Palestinian are. If this ever comes to happen, the people of Venezuela will resist with every possible way - including "terrorism". We both know the term terrosism applies to anything that Bush doesn't like. This shoudl not detact from the reality that the Palestinians do use tactics that are terrorist in any book.

Resistants against the Nazi in 40-44 did use "terrorism" too: bombings, suicide missions, ... the main difference (which is very important) is that they targeted nazi soldiers or nazi war facilities/convoys, not civilians. But they did kill civilian in "side effects". War is cruel, reckless, inhuman. But there cannot be peace as long as one country is occupying another one.They had suicide missions to churches and bus stops or military barraks and Nazi army convoys?

I don't say suicide bombers are right, but you've to remember that they don't have much other solution - and you've to remember also that they are just a tiny fraction of Palestinian.
I disagree. I think they have all kinds of choices.

don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing

And the reason Israel maintains such a powerful and expensive military? Because they kept getting invaded! On the day after Israel's creation it was invaded by forces from Arab Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Even without a standing army and with limited weapons, they pushed the Arab forces back out of Israel. The Arabs invaded, albeit unsucessfully, atleast another 5 times. I think the IDF's size is justified.

They didn't deliberately target civilians the way Islamic terrorists do.

You're horribly wrong. Lenin ordered the CHEKA to execute people at random so that everyone lived in fear. Castro and Guevara put people in jails and shot them to keep counter-revolutionaries in their place.

That's not to say I'm against communism, I'm in favour of it, but on the other hand, some of the methods of bringing it about have been pretty terrible.

No. Not in anyway that matters.

Or "yes, in all of the ways that matter" in my opinion. Read Kilobugya's post for examples.

Here's a fact. If the palestinians were to follow the tactics of ghandi and Mandella they'd have the WORLD behind them. Think about it. During Apartheid millions from all over the world, myself included, marched to protest against the South African government and it eventually worked. I remember the chants:

"Reagan Botha you can't hide. Wecharge you with genocide."

Same thing happend with Ghandi. Why not with the Palestinians? Why do they garner so little world sympathy? Could it be that their tactics are so reprehensible? I think so.
Because the Israelis would gun them down because "they might rush at them and blow themselves up". That's as fine a "fact" as you've just laid down. Plus they're Muslims, so that puts them in a crap light in the West regardless of what they do.

Whenever moderate Muslims are on the BBC, for example, the interviewers also have some nutter on, to counterbalance this, and they usually give the fundamentalist far, far more airtime. Which disgusts me.

That'd be like putting the Archbishop of Canterbury up with Koresh (or "Prophet Whittier---" maybe) and saying that they're both equally representative of Christianity. No they're clearly not.

I would also like to point out that Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank together still does not make up all of ancient Israel.


And, since we are disputing the 'historicity' of claims... mightn't we point out that that earlier 'state' was obtained through a military occupation and Anti-Semitic genocide?

And, since we are disputing the 'historicity' of claims... mightn't we point out that that earlier 'state' was obtained through a military occupation and Anti-Semitic genocide?

What are you talking about? By ancient Israel I am referring to the Kingdoms of David and Solomon.

You're horribly wrong. Lenin ordered the CHEKA to execute people at random so that everyone lived in fear. Castro and Guevara put people in jails and shot them to keep counter-revolutionaries in their place.

That's not to say I'm against communism, I'm in favour of it, but on the other hand, some of the methods of bringing it about have been pretty terrible.Once they got into office they were brutal. I'm specifically referring to their fight for liberation.



Or "yes, in all of the ways that matter" in my opinion. Read Kilobugya's post for examples.Read and responded to. There is no difference between the situations that would cause the Palestinians to choose the tactics they do over the tactics that the Indians, the South Afrricans and any other national liberation movement have used.


Because the Israelis would gun them down because "they might rush at them and blow themselves up". That's as fine a "fact" as you've just laid down. Plus they're Muslims, so that puts them in a crap light in the West regardless of what they do.Why? Do you think it may be because of the tactics Muslims generally choose?

Whenever moderate Muslims are on the BBC, for example, the interviewers also have some nutter on, to counterbalance this, and they usually give the fundamentalist far, far more airtime. Which disgusts me.

That'd be like putting the Archbishop of Canterbury up with Koresh (or "Prophet Whittier---" maybe) and saying that they're both equally representative of Christianity. No they're clearly not.
Not only are you not going to get me to say that the tactics they choose are okay, but you will also not get me to say that they wouldn't be more successful if they choose another route. If they choose to do things the way Ghandi did and pictures of Isreali watyer cannons or, God forbid, Isreali tanks mowing down peacful protestors showed up on TV screens around the world there woudl be millions of people in the streets and chaining themselves to Isreali embassies all over the world.

What are you talking about? By ancient Israel I am referring to the Kingdoms of David and Solomon.

I assume you have heard of Joshua?

Not only are you not going to get me to say that the tactics they choose are okay, but you will also not get me to say that they wouldn't be more successful if they choose another route. If they choose to do things the way Ghandi did and pictures of Isreali watyer cannons or, God forbid, Isreali tanks mowing down peacful protestors showed up on TV screens around the world there woudl be millions of people in the streets and chaining themselves to Isreali embassies all over the world.

we saw these scenes daily during the intefada. remeber that kid and his father hit by the IDF sniper when they didnt realise there were cameras about.

the reality is peacefull protest was squashed by the IDF and as such, the tactics became more and more militant

we saw these scenes daily during the intefada. remeber that kid and his father hit by the IDF sniper when they didnt realise there were cameras about.

the reality is peacefull protest was squashed by the IDF and as such, the tactics became more and more militant
Their tactics go way back before the Intifada. You blow up bus stops and shopping malls for twenty years you can't expect the images to just vanish over a few images liek you describe. Remember how they brought the attention of the world to their struggle - by taking hostage and murdering a bunch of atheletes at the Olympics. It's hard to live that kind of history down.

I love how Israel is the one that gets demonized while the Palestinians pull shit like this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482090161&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A group of Palestinian children were sent towards the Gaza Strip border fence holding toy guns on Thursday in order to test the vigilance of the soldiers on duty.

...

From a distance, troops noticed four apparently armed Palestinians approaching the border north of the Kissufim crossing.

When the four were some 400 meters from the fence, the soldiers realized that they were children, who looked to be about 13 years of age, and that their guns were toys.

I love how Israel is the one that gets demonized while the Palestinians pull shit like this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482090161&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I suspect that's why Israel gets demonized. I've got a feeling that if those kids had gotten shot many newspapers and websites would have conveniently failed to mention the toy guns. Also you've got Palestinians faking massacres, like they did at Jenin. Palestine seems to be effective at spinning the news to win public sympathy.

I suspect that's why Israel gets demonized. I've got a feeling that if those kids had gotten shot many newspapers and websites would have conveniently failed to mention the toy guns. Also you've got Palestinians faking massacres, like they did at Jenin. Palestine seems to be effective at spinning the news to win public sympathy.
I remember when this picture came out in the news:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast.photograph/vert.baby.bomber.jpg

The head of the Palestinian Authority came out and said it was an Isreali fabrication. At the same time, across town, the Palestinians who took this picture of their kid said they did it as a party joke. basically, the Palestinian authority just lied.

I love how Israel is the one that gets demonized while the Palestinians pull shit like this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482090161&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

was there not a thread on this where the story was rubbished?

kids play 400m (1200 feet!!) from an IDF position? what exactly is the 'shit' they pulled?

Just one then. One example.

One example of a 16 year old female suicide bomber? It just so happens that the very first female suicide bomber we know of was a 16 year old named Khyadali Sana who murdered two Israeli soldiers moving in a convoy.

Your skepticism of the existence of female suicide bombers, which is common knowledge, demonstrates your anti-Israel bias. Because its common knowledge, a question such as "one example" is akin to "just give me one example of a Jew killed in the Holocaust." It denies the existence of such things by implication.

And when it comes to schools and targeting anything or one named "IDF" would be best advised to be very very quiet...

This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. I yearn for the day when Nodina will go more than a couple posts without something illogical in them.

was there not a thread on this where the story was rubbished?

kids play 400m (1200 feet!!) from an IDF position? what exactly is the 'shit' they pulled?

So far, no one has claimed that they were just "playing." I would suggest you read the full coverage of the story. They were sent by a Palestinian group to "test vigilance." More likely, they were sent to be shot so that the Palestinians could demonize Israel.

In fact, the murder and torture of Palestinians by Palestinian terror groups only to blame it on the Israelis is quite common. Its used to drum up anti-Israeli sentiment, as two Arab youths persecuted by Palestinians (shot and tortured for being homosexual, in fact) testify in the 2003 documentary Gan.

Well, Ghandi and MLK were killed. Mandella got divorced.

Well, Gandhi (and I am sick of the spelling Ghandi because "ghand" means ass in hindi), MLK and Mandela all achieved their goals.

Saying that "oh the poor Palestinians have no option but to target Israeli non-combatants" is stupid considering the success of the strategies of the above real freedom fighters.

The current strategy of terrorism by palestinian and arab leaders would get the Pal' people nowhere near their goal.

*snip*
Whenever moderate Muslims are on the BBC, for example, the interviewers also have some nutter on, to counterbalance this, and they usually give the fundamentalist far, far more airtime. Which disgusts me.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Moderate Muslims do not support suicide bombings in any fashion, because suicide is viewed as as in. The way Palestinians fight using suicide attacks and terror are not considered "acceptable" to moderate Muslims. However, to you, they are, as you wrote:

As it stands, as a repressed people, with no real hope of fighting back in an orthodox way, they fight in what I would call an acceptable fashion.

You defend and espouse the doctrines of extremist, terrorist Islam, who believe exactly what you've just written. Moderate Islam does not accept that the way Palestinians fight back is "acceptable" in any sort of fashion, as it violates Sharia in a number of ways.

*snip* I yearn for the day when Nodina will go more than a couple posts without something illogical in them.
Bailed after this post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079422&postcount=14

Bailed after this post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079422&postcount=14

Yeah, I noticed that. It should also probably be mentioned that Yassin issued a Fatwa supporting female suicide bombers; not only supporting them, but stating that female suicide bombers had a particularly special and nice place in paradise.

So far, no one has claimed that they were just "playing." I would suggest you read the full coverage of the story. They were sent by a Palestinian group to "test vigilance." More likely, they were sent to be shot so that the Palestinians could demonize Israel.
Gan.

is it more liekely? sent by whom?

the jerusalem post ran a minor story that 2 kids with toy guns were spotted near a military post. they werent shot, becase someone realised they were kids.they werent even detained ffs

is that really how bad israeili propeganda has gone since the ceasefires?

So long as the Palestinians keep engaging in terrorism they will suffer. That's just a fact. You pick on a stronger enemy and he'll beat you down. When they wise up and act in a nonviolent manner they will be able to negotiate an acceptable settlement. .
The problem being that it is Israel that gets to determine what is acceptable. Out of interest, anyone know whether a state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza strip would be economically viable.

Also (not aimed at anyone in particular)
Palestinians=/=all arabs =/= arab league.

As for Palestine never existing before, it existed as a part of the Ottoman empire, just as the US did under the British empire, then each empire was no longer able to hold down that part of their empire (mainly due to attacks from Allies/French respectively). Ergo, Palestine has as much a right to exist there as the USA does.

The way I see it, kick them back to as close to the 1967 borders, or at least to lands the same size, and if Israel wants this bit of land that wasn't their's under those borders, then they have to negotiate with the Palestinians to give them some other land etc. I don't care if Israel was attacked or whatever, as soon as they took the decision to annex land then they became the aggressor in an illegal action, namely that of attempted conquest, and that should not be countenanced.

Can we all agree that the intentionall killing of civilians who are not involved in the conflict by either side is unacceptable

is it more liekely? sent by whom?

It is more likely, because the historical precedent has both Islamic Jihad and Hamas doing the exact same thing in the past, such as in the case of Muhammad Aborab.

If you were familiar with Israeli-Arab culture in the Occupied Territories at all, you would also know that children in general don't "play" with toy guns as they do in European countries or in the US. Because real guns are given to children at early ages, and guns are a part of their serious and violent culture, which has been immersed in real war, they don't have a recreational outlet of "playing war" on the same scale that occurs in other countries with little military violence.

Walking into a store in Palestine or Israel, it is much harder to find toy guns than walking into a store in the US, because there is no demand for such things. The vast majority of toy guns are actually used as props in Palestinian nationalist parades, but not as the toys they were intended.

In fact, here is a picture of Palestinian children holding toy guns. They look quite real, and don't conform to the safety standards of having an "orange tip" as toy guns need to in the US. Also note that they aren't playing, they are military props in a PLO ceremony.

Palestinians with Toy Guns (http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/death-cult-camp-01.jpg)

the jerusalem post ran a minor story that 2 kids with toy guns were spotted near a military post. they werent shot, becase someone realised they were kids.they werent even detained ffs

You must not have actually read it. It states that four children were sent toward the fence to test the vigilance of the soldiers on duty. It was also at the Kissufim crossing, which isn't a populated area. Did the children walk for miles just to "play" by the Kissufim crossing? And did I mention that this is one of the most common places for terrorists to attempt to cross to carry out attacks?

The way I see it, kick them back to as close to the 1967 borders, or at least to lands the same size, and if Israel wants this bit of land that wasn't their's under those borders, then they have to negotiate with the Palestinians to give them some other land etc. I don't care if Israel was attacked or whatever, as soon as they took the decision to annex land then they became the aggressor in an illegal action, namely that of attempted conquest, and that should not be countenanced.

You are not the agressor if you are attacked. By definition you are the defender. Israel annexed the land yes, but on several occations they have demonstrated willingness to give it back. The Clinton Barrak proposals gave the Palistianins 95% of the West Bank, along with all of Gaza and East Jeruslaem. The only condition was the giving up of the right to return, which is an absurditiy anyway.

Can we all agree that the intentionall killing of civilians who are not involved in the conflict by either side is unacceptable

Yes, the intentional killing of civilians in any case is unacceptable.

What people don't realize is that civilians killed in military actions against Palestine by Israel are not "intentional", as the intended targets are non-civilian (such as a house converted into a bomb factory), whereas virtually all civilians killed by Palestinians are targets against civilians alone (such as a disco, mall, or falafel stand).

Yes, the intentional killing of civilians in any case is unacceptable.

What people don't realize is that civilians killed in military actions against Palestine by Israel are not "intentional", as the intended targets are non-civilian (such as a house converted into a bomb factory), whereas virtually all civilians killed by Palestinians are targets against civilians alone (such as a disco, mall, or falafel stand).

Indeed, I would agree with that

Which is why I believe the Palistianins are the party most at fault here. They have rejected every offer of peace so far and as a result the Isralie government cannot continue to offer them more land. To do so would be to reward their viloence.

The problem being that it is Israel that gets to determine what is acceptable. Out of interest, anyone know whether a state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza strip would be economically viable.

According to five major Arab leaders during the Oslo accords, including Egyptian President Honsi Mubarak, Prince Abdulla from Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah II from Jordan, a state of the West Bank and Gaza strip was not only economically viable but optimal. The lead negotiator of the accords, Dennis Ross, also concured. Only Arafat rejected it, when the entire Arab world accepted it. Arafat also failed to give a solid reason for rejecting it and continued to consort with wanted terrorists during the entire thing.

As for Palestine never existing before, it existed as a part of the Ottoman empire, just as the US did under the British empire, then each empire was no longer able to hold down that part of their empire (mainly due to attacks from Allies/French respectively). Ergo, Palestine has as much a right to exist there as the USA does.

During the Ottoman Empire, "Palestine" was not recognized as a geograpical or ethnic location. There was no group of persons who identified as "Palestinians" but rather as Syrians, the word specifically for this being Bilad al-Sham. The Palestinian Mandate and the San Remo conference enacted international law whereby the Mandate would be divided into two states, a Jewish homeland and an Arab area. The two states were, originally, Israel (which consisted of everything west of the Jordan river) and Jordan.

It wasn't until the UN Partition Plan, Resolution 181, which violated the agreement of this previous international law, that the full area alotted to Israel was to be broken up and divided into two mroe states, a new Israel and a Palestinian area. Even Palestinian sympathizers rejected this plan, such as the Iranian deligate, who wanted to see a single state.

Then the Arabs and the British, who controlled the mandate, both rejected Resolution 181, rendering it invalid, as international law must work by treaty and the Mandate was under control of the British, who by law had sole authority over its administration in such a fashion and were bound by the San Remo conference which stated it would all be a Jewish homeland, with no room for an extra third state aside from Israel and Jordan.

The way I see it, kick them back to as close to the 1967 borders, or at least to lands the same size, and if Israel wants this bit of land that wasn't their's under those borders, then they have to negotiate with the Palestinians to give them some other land etc. I don't care if Israel was attacked or whatever, as soon as they took the decision to annex land then they became the aggressor in an illegal action, namely that of attempted conquest, and that should not be countenanced.

Under international law, the entire area west of the Jordan was always Israel's. The areas that would come to be known as the "West Bank" was never owned by a group called "Palestine" but by Jordan, and Gaza was owned by Egypt. If you want to go back to the 1967 boarders, its only fair and legal to return the land to who owns it, Egypt and Jordan.

However, if you want a real two state solution, then the land is owned by Israel under the law enacted at the San Remo conference, and thus Israel may declare its boarders wherever it chooses, and give as much land as it pleases to a group of Palestinians who never had a legal right to the land to begin with.

Indeed, I would agree with that

Which is why I believe the Palistianins are the party most at fault here. They have rejected every offer of peace so far and as a result the Isralie government cannot continue to offer them more land. To do so would be to reward their viloence.
They see the offers as unreasonable, and from my (admittedly somewhat lacking knowledge of Israeli peace offerings) they generally favour themselves quite heavily.


You are not the agressor if you are attacked. By definition you are the defender. Israel annexed the land yes, but on several occations they have demonstrated willingness to give it back. The Clinton Barrak proposals gave the Palistianins 95% of the West Bank, along with all of Gaza and East Jeruslaem. The only condition was the giving up of the right to return, which is an absurditiy anyway.
You can't logically be a defender when you're fighting on your opponents land. They were defenders while the fighting was in Israel, but as soon as they took the decision to advance further than their own borders they became aggressors. Thinking back, I seem to remember evidence being posted (possibly in the other Israel-Palestine thread currently active, the one that started about the children) that that state would not have been economically viable.

Explain the right of return to me, and why it is unreasonable, since what it actually means seems to change depending on whose posting. If it's a right of displaced Palestinians to return to lands they own/had taken from them without their consent then why is that unreasonable, after all isn't that the basis of the argument for Israel to exist in the first place.

They see the offers as unreasonable, and from my (admittedly somewhat lacking knowledge of Israeli peace offerings) they generally favour themselves quite heavily.

This is wrong. Its a half-truth that has spun way out of control. The non-Palestinian Arab leadership of the Middle East, as I posted previously, and the Palestinian population, hasn't viewed the offers as unreasonable. It has been the minority Palestinian leadership, such as Arafat and Haniyeh today, that sees them as unreasonable. And in doing so they act against the wishes and best interest of the Palestinian people.

The minority terrorist leadership of the Palestinians, such as the PLO and Hamas, do not dictate what the Palestinians or the Arab world see as unreasonable. The latter have seen the peace process and offers as quite reasonable, as David Ross (lead negotiator at Oslo) outlines in his report.

You can't logically be a defender when you're fighting on your opponents land. They were defenders while the fighting was in Israel, but as soon as they took the decision to advance further than their own borders they became aggressors. Thinking back, I seem to remember evidence being posted (possibly in the other Israel-Palestine thread currently active, the one that started about the children) that that state would not have been economically viable.

Palestine was never a state. Palestine was never supported as part of the "two states" under the intnl. law dictated at San Remo, only Israel and Jordan were. UN Resolution 181 was rejected. Thus, "Palestinians" have no legal claim to any such land.

Israeli boarders were, according to the laws passed at San Remo, to be from the west of Jordan all the way to the ocean. The West Bank has always been either Israeli or Jordanian land, according to the rule of law, and never land belonging to Palestine.

Explain the right of return to me, and why it is unreasonable, since what it actually means seems to change depending on whose posting. If it's a right of displaced Palestinians to return to lands they own/had taken from them without their consent then why is that unreasonable, after all isn't that the basis of the argument for Israel to exist in the first place.

The right of return is the right for all Palestinians to return to Israel who have had previous resdence there. Its been offered in a number of agreements, and a partial right to return was offered in Oslo. Yet, the Palestinians have still rejected the peace process.

It should also be pointed out that at this point in time there aren't many Palestinians alive who can prove that they have the right to return, that they are descended from displaced peoples, etc. The vast majority of displaced Palestinians were kept in camps by Jordan or Egypt, not by Israel.

They see the offers as unreasonable, and from my (admittedly somewhat lacking knowledge of Israeli peace offerings) they generally favour themselves quite heavily.

Explain how this offering is unreasonable. 95% of the west bank, the entire of Gaza and East Jeruslaem


You can't logically be a defender when you're fighting on your opponents land. They were defenders while the fighting was in Israel, but as soon as they took the decision to advance further than their own borders they became aggressors. Thinking back, I seem to remember evidence being posted (possibly in the other Israel-Palestine thread currently active, the one that started about the children) that that state would not have been economically viable.

No, they were still defenders because what they were doing was preventing reprisal. Imagine if we fought WW2 like that. Stopping at the German borders. Germany would have reconsoldiated and exapnded again. We would fight back to their borders and they would expand again. Attrition.


Explain the right of return to me, and why it is unreasonable, since what it actually means seems to change depending on whose posting. If it's a right of displaced Palestinians to return to lands they own/had taken from them without their consent then why is that unreasonable, after all isn't that the basis of the argument for Israel to exist in the first place.

The right to return is basicly the argument by the Palestianins that those who left Israel during the 1948 war of Israelie independence have a right to return to Israel. Not only them but also their descenednts. This is flawed for a number of reasons

1) It presumes that Israel demanded they leave. They didnt. The Isralie government urged the Arabs to remain in their homes. They left because the Arab states around them were about to attack Israel (and indeed did attack) and they did not want to be caught in the cross fire

2) It presumes that Israel didn't offer them a chance to return earlier. They did. After the war was over the Israelie government passed a law allowing those who had left to return under three conditions
- They became Isralie citizens
- They renounced viloence
- They became peaceful and productive members of society

No problem, but before you read the list which includes kids as young as 11, I'm curious. This is news to you? You're not denying this kind of thing happens, right? By happens, I mean all the time. I thought it was just common knowledge. Anyhoo...

Its common knowledge and I know they use children. However I was unaware of a 14 year old school girl blowing up a "shopping mall" and thus decided to make you provide the "proof" in the same way I seem to be asked for by the pro-Israeli bunch.


Until then, the blood of the Palestinians is on their own hands....

They are the occupied, not the occupier.

Here's a fact. If the palestinians were to follow the tactics of ghandi and Mandella they'd have the WORLD behind them....

The "world" has voted for them time and time again only to be vetoed by the US - thats why they have become more extreme over time. I was under the imprression that that fell under "common knowledge" also.


Bailed after this post.....

O the optimism of youth.....


One example of a 16 year old female suicide bomber? It just so happens that the very first female suicide bomber we know of was a 16 year old named Khyadali Sana who murdered two Israeli soldiers moving in a convoy.....

If they're soldiers its not murder my lad. You can cry foul over the civillians and thats fair enoughbut they're part of an occupying force - legitimate targets.


It denies the existence of such things by implication......

I was told that the IDF didnt kill UN workers the other day in a thread on this board and asked for proof. I just provided same without throwing in the straw man.

Under international law, the entire area west of the Jordan was always Israel's. The areas that would come to be known as the "West Bank" was never owned by a group called "Palestine" but by Jordan, and Gaza was owned by Egypt. If you want to go back to the 1967 boarders, its only fair and legal to return the land to who owns it, Egypt and Jordan.

However, if you want a real two state solution, then the land is owned by Israel under the law enacted at the San Remo conference, and thus Israel may declare its boarders wherever it chooses, and give as much land as it pleases to a group of Palestinians who never had a legal right to the land to begin with.......

Been having a wet dream there?. Jordan has ceded rights to the Palestinians for the West Bank btw. Your first paragraph seems to contradict itself as well, Imo.

Its common knowledge and I know they use children. However I was unaware of a 14 year old school girl blowing up a "shopping mall" and thus decided to make you provide the "proof" in the same way I seem to be asked for by the pro-Israeli bunch. And I said I pulled it out of my ass. I was using a hypothetical example to prove a point and the example was perfectly relevent because, as you just admitted, things like that happen all the time.


The "world" has voted for them time and time again only to be vetoed by the US - thats why they have become more extreme over time. I was under the imprression that that fell under "common knowledge" also.That's an intentional dodge. You know perfectly well that I was talking about a world wide movement on the part of ordinary citizens in the streets, not a UN vote. That point was perfectly clear in the post you quoted and it was perfectly clear in subsequent posts by me and others who were debating teh point with me.



O the optimism of youth.....Yeah. I'd like to be young again as well. It seems just yesterday I was pushing 30, now I'm... That wasn't clear from the post I made about portesting against Apartheid? I posted that I was chanting, "Reagan, Botha you can't hide..."

If they're soldiers its not murder my lad. You can cry foul over the civillians and thats fair enoughbut they're part of an occupying force - legitimate targets.

It is murder. Murder by definition is the illegal killing of a person, and both the PA and Israel acknowledge terrorist acts against civilians or military as murder.

Furthermore, as Palestine is not a soverign state, it doesnt have the power to declare war on any other state. A private entity attacking a soverign state isn't covered by the rules of war, but by civil law, which states it is murder.

Been having a wet dream there?. Jordan has ceded rights to the Palestinians for the West Bank btw. Your first paragraph seems to contradict itself as well, Imo.

The paragraphs are contradictory because international law contradicted itself. San Remo and the Palestinian Mandate gave the entire area west of the Jordan to Israel, whereas the UN Resolution 181 (rejected by the United Kingdom and the Arabs of the region) contradicted the law passed at San Remo, resulting in the Jordanian occupation of Israeli land that was suppossed to be set aside for a third state that was provided for in 181, a third state that has never existed.

Fucking Isrealis. How dare they demand that the Palestinians say "we won't send 14 year old girls with bombs strapped to themselves to shopping malls to kill dozens of people." I know what you mean. I can't stand that Isreal won't at least meet them halfway like, "okay, you can blow up buses but no discos" or something.


When was the last time a 14 year old girl suicide bombed anything in israel?

When was the last time a 14 year old girl suicide bombed anything in israel?

I'm not sure when the last time was, but I can think of some 14 year old female suicide bombings that didn't occur any earlier than, say, 9/11. Such as Wafa Idris in 2002.

Of course, the vast majority of suicide bombings are done by people under the age of 18. And ironically enough, these are the same deaths that are included in the statistics of "children killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict" by groups like Human Rights Watch, in addition to Palestinians killed by other Palestinians as a result of the conflict.

When are we going to stop blaming Israel for Palestinians killing other Palestinians? This is the type of schoolyard mentality that cries out, "He made me do it!" with no accountability whatsoever.

I'm not sure when the last time was, but I can think of some 14 year old female suicide bombings that didn't occur any earlier than, say, 9/11. Such as Wafa Idris in 2002.

Of course, the vast majority of suicide bombings are done by people under the age of 18. And ironically enough, these are the same deaths that are included in the statistics of "children killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict" by groups like Human Rights Watch, in addition to Palestinians killed by other Palestinians as a result of the conflict.

When are we going to stop blaming Israel for Palestinians killing other Palestinians? This is the type of schoolyard mentality that cries out, "He made me do it!" with no accountability whatsoever.


Do you then have good statistics on how many palestinian children have been killed by the israelis?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482094109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

You see everyone!!! All the militants have to do is reognize Israel, lay down their guns, and stop firing missiles at Israel and the violence will stop. As long as there are no terrorist attacks against Israelis, the violence will stop and negotiations can take place. The ball is in the Palestinians court now....

About Time. Now if we can get Hamas to do so....we'll be in good shape.

I'm not sure when the last time was, but I can think of some 14 year old female suicide bombings that didn't occur any earlier than, say, 9/11. Such as Wafa Idris in 2002.

Of course, the vast majority of suicide bombings are done by people under the age of 18. And ironically enough, these are the same deaths that are included in the statistics of "children killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict" by groups like Human Rights Watch, in addition to Palestinians killed by other Palestinians as a result of the conflict.

When are we going to stop blaming Israel for Palestinians killing other Palestinians? This is the type of schoolyard mentality that cries out, "He made me do it!" with no accountability whatsoever.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1791800.stm

According the BBC she was 28 and you're a liar.

Now answer my question, sans your fast-and-loose-with-the-truth business.

When was the last time a 14 year old girl suicide bombed anything in israel?

PsychoDan also plays fast-and-loose with the truth, and it was his assertion to begin with, so he can answer instead.

Do you then have good statistics on how many palestinian children have been killed by the israelis?

Statistics like this would virtually always be questionable, due to the fact that what is considered a 'child' in Arab countries is much different than what we consider to be a 'child' in Israel or Western countries. An arbitrary definition of 'child' skews the fact that Arab nations, and particularly terrorist groups, employ what we call 'child soldiers'; fighters under the age of 18.

Because of the highly corruptable nature of statistics, in addition to the variables in this type of situation, it would be hard to come up with anything that could be called 'good statistics.'

However, to give a comparison, even if we take the statistics from organizations like Human Rights Watch, the number of total civilians killed throughout the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is less than that of civilians killed in the recent US occupation of Iraq. That should give the unbiased, objective observer an estimate or comparison of how minimal the deaths of Arabs during the Arab-Israeli conflict has been.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1791800.stm

According the BBC she was 28 and you're a liar.

Now answer my question, sans your fast-and-loose-with-the-truth business.

When was the last time a 14 year old girl suicide bombed anything in israel?

PsychoDan also plays fast-and-loose with the truth, and it was his assertion to begin with, so he can answer instead.

My mistake, Idris killed a 14 year old Jewish girl in her anti-Semitic suicide attack. She wasn't 14 years old herself. Although, I imagine that makes it much, much more acceptable since she killed a Jewish child rather than being a child Palestinian suicide bomber, right?

Keep in mind, instead of googling and crying "you're a liar!" when you find a mistake of mine, that I'm going off of what I remember, not what I have to google up. Unlike some people whose totality of Israeli knowledge is based on what they find on the BBC and google. :D

Although, you have to keep in mind that exact ages of suicide bombers who are caught aren't released by the Israeli government often if they are minors under Israeli law, nor are the ages of suicide bombers who commit the act. The vast majority of suicide bomber information comes from the terrorist side, when they take credit for the action and reimburse the families for the deaths. I can list hundreds of cases of 'teens' caught in the act of attempting to do suicide bombings, making them suicide bombers by definition, but without the actual vitals released, we wont be able to get that accurate of a picture of how young these female suicide bombers are. Needless to say, its reasonable to believe there are plenty, since more teen suicide bombers have been caught by the IDF than have actually done suicide bombings.

Now, if you're interested in pictures of little girl suicide bombers from the Palestinian side, you could check out Dying to Kill. Why don't you look at the cover, and tell me if you think this little girl suicide bomber is younger or older than 14?

Dying to Kill (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231133200/sr=8-1/qid=1149304485/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7686569-2668948?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

If that isn't good enough, Wikipedia actually records that 14 and 15 year old girls were caught attempting suicide bombings just as recently as 2004:

On June 16, 2004, two girls - aged 14 and 15 were arrested by the IDF for plotting a suicide bombing. According to an IDF statement, the two minors were recruited by activists from Tanzim (Fatah's armed wing), guided by Hezbollah.

That last bit I remember hearing about. I shook my head.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1791800.stm

According the BBC she was 28 and you're a liar.

Now answer my question, sans your fast-and-loose-with-the-truth business.

When was the last time a 14 year old girl suicide bombed anything in israel?

PsychoDan also plays fast-and-loose with the truth, and it was his assertion to begin with, so he can answer instead.
I made it clear that it was a hypothetical, and then I posted a whole list of planned Palistinian terror attacks from children with similar, some even younger, ages. I don't understand you people. I was pulling a hypothetical out of my ass about a 16 year old girl. I made it clear a post later that it was hypothetical only because someone asked for specifics. It surprised me that someone would because the Palestinians are known for using children and I thought it was a given. The person who called me on it even said they knew it happened frequently. What's the point in asking for the specifics? You know damn well that it happens. The point wasn't and still isn't, "did the Palestinians use a particular girl or boy of a particular age to blow up a particular target." The point is that the Palestinians use children in terror attacks. That's not even a controversial statement. Everyone knows it's true.

Statistics like this would virtually always be questionable, due to the fact that what is considered a 'child' in Arab countries is much different than what we consider to be a 'child' in Israel or Western countries. An arbitrary definition of 'child' skews the fact that Arab nations, and particularly terrorist groups, employ what we call 'child soldiers'; fighters under the age of 18.

Because of the highly corruptable nature of statistics, in addition to the variables in this type of situation, it would be hard to come up with anything that could be called 'good statistics.'

However, to give a comparison, even if we take the statistics from organizations like Human Rights Watch, the number of total civilians killed throughout the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is less than that of civilians killed in the recent US occupation of Iraq. That should give the unbiased, objective observer an estimate or comparison of how minimal the deaths of Arabs during the Arab-Israeli conflict has been.


IIRC, the Anti gun people over here use anywhere from 4-20 as a "child".

And I said I pulled it out of my ass. I was using a hypothetical example to prove a point and the example was perfectly relevent because, as you just admitted, things like that happen all the time.
..."

Yep, and I do appreciate the fact that you admit it, though using a fictional incident example with such emotional conotations is dubious at best.. And now I know that you are at least vaguely rooted in reality, which is a lot more than can be said for some who post on this particular issue.


That's an intentional dodge. You know perfectly well that I was talking about a world wide movement on the part of ordinary citizens in the streets, not a UN vote. That point was perfectly clear in the post you quoted and it was perfectly clear in subsequent posts by me and others who were debating teh point with me...."

Never even occurred to me. However I remeber that the Shemagh was a fashion accessory for years - it isn't now. Its no long too "fashionable" it would seem, to support an Arab cause either. And as regards "ordinary citizens" on the streets, you might cast your mind back to the protests against the Iraq war, (particularily in Britain) before the invasion. The harsh truth is that really only one country counts, and thats the US.



Yeah. I'd like to be young again as well. It seems just yesterday I was pushing 30, now I'm... That wasn't clear from the post I made about portesting against Apartheid? I posted that I was chanting, "Reagan, Botha you can't hide..."

Point taken

It is murder. Murder by definition is the illegal killing of a person, and both the PA and Israel acknowledge terrorist acts against civilians or military as murder.


I find it rather pathetic that the PA are forced into a position where an attack on an occupying force is disowned in such a manner. As far as I'm concerned, any attack on a military unit within the occupied terrirories is a legitamate act within a liberation struggle.


Furthermore, as Palestine is not a soverign state, it doesnt have the power to declare war on any other state. A private entity attacking a soverign state isn't covered by the rules of war, but by civil law, which states it is murder.

In light of that, how would you then describe actions taken against British forces by various Zionist groups such as the Lehi, Irgun, and Haggannah?

but without the actual vitals released, we wont be able to get that accurate of a picture of how young these female suicide bombers are.

Aha....

I find it rather pathetic that the PA are forced into a position where an attack on an occupying force is disowned in such a manner. As far as I'm concerned, any attack on a military unit within the occupied terrirories is a legitamate act within a liberation struggle.

The PA rarely actively attacks or takes responsibility for the terrorist attacks. In fact, almost always, the PA condemns the terrorist attacks as crime and murder. Even the PA disagrees with you here, because what you call a "legitimate act" it repeatedly denies responsibility for and condemns as criminal.

In light of that, how would you then describe actions taken against British forces by various Zionist groups such as the Lehi, Irgun, and Haggannah?

The Lehi and Irgun were eventually condemned by the haggannah. The former two are questionable, but the latter was originally endorsed by the British and followed the structure of a paramilitary group, not a terrorist group. It should also be noted that these groups never enacted as a modus operandi attacks on civilians, nor an intend to intimidate, strike fear, or 'terror' into their enemies.

Aha....

And what does this infer anyway? We're talking about female suicide bombers that are considered minors under Israeli law (under 18) so their vitals aren't always released, thus we always get statistics less than the actual number of child female suicide bombers. Does this somehow effect a point of yours?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079422&postcount=14

No problem, but before you read the list which includes kids as young as 11, I'm curious. This is news to you? You're not denying this kind of thing happens, right? By happens, I mean all the time. I thought it was just common knowledge. Anyhoo...


LOL! Nodinia=pwned!

Who kills the children ?

According to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group, 603 Palestinian children were killed since the start of the second Intifada; 529 (87.7%) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed, and they have ambiguous data on 31 children others.

Meanwhile, Israeli children killed by Palestinians are below 100.

The difference is that while Israel has tanks, helicopters and bombers, Palestinians have nothing but their own lives. And that while Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of their historical lands, Israel is still occupying and trying to annex part of the 22% remaining land, in violation of international laws, UN charters, UN resolutions and La Haye international court decision.

I don't support at all the suicide bombers, but don't forget there is an occupied land and an occupation force, don't forget there is one of the best equiped army of the world against people who have nearly nothing, don't forget there are some who want more than 78% while some accept 22%.
The simple fact is that Israli soldiers never hide behind children or seek cover in places where they are. Too bad palestinian fighters don't feel the same concern for their children;
http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields

I find it rather pathetic that the PA are forced into a position where an attack on an occupying force is disowned in such a manner. As far as I'm concerned, any attack on a military unit within the occupied terrirories is a legitamate act within a liberation struggle.

And mercifully for the world, you are not international law.

I find it rather pathetic that the PA are forced into a position where an attack on an occupying force is disowned in such a manner. As far as I'm concerned, any attack on a military unit within the occupied terrirories is a legitamate act within a liberation struggle.And mercifully for the world, you are not international law.

Reading Nodinia's quote again, it reminds me of Dershowitz saying how the sympathizers are "More Palestinian than the Palestinians."

Nodnia supports actions as "legitimate acts within a liberation struggle" that the Palestinian Authority itself rejects as criminal acts of terrorism.

Once the Palistianians want their own state more than they want to destoy Israel there will be peace.

The PA rarely actively attacks or takes responsibility for the terrorist attacks. In fact, almost always, the PA condemns the terrorist attacks as crime and murder. Even the PA disagrees with you here, because what you call a "legitimate act" it repeatedly denies responsibility for and condemns as criminal..

And again, I find that bizarre.



The Lehi and Irgun were eventually condemned by the haggannah. The former two are questionable, but the latter was originally endorsed by the British and followed the structure of a paramilitary group, not a terrorist group. It should also be noted that these groups never enacted as a modus operandi attacks on civilians, nor an intend to intimidate, strike fear, or 'terror' into their enemies.

O dear me thats a good one. Didn't "intend to intimidate, strike fear, or Terror" into their enemies'. Did they have flowers sticking out of their pistol muzzles?

LOL! Nodinia=pwned!.

He gives an incident as an example place, I ask for the details - he says the example was for "illustrative purposes" and I'm "pwned". Well,well. Wave them pom poms for him, ye good thing ye.


The simple fact is that Israli soldiers never hide behind children or seek cover in places where they are.!.

Wonder what this court case was about then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm)

This lad handcuffed to the jeep doesn't look too happy ....
http://http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0424-01.jpg


And mercifully for the world, you are not international law...

Yes, that way anybody who allies with the US doesn't have to worry about ...international law....

Having been denied the justice they are due by the US use of the veto, the Palestinians are left with only two options - submission to destruction and exile, or resistance. I see no reason why any people should choose the former, even if defeat were inevitable.

And so the Cliff Notes version of the thread:

If the dirty brown-skinned Muslims would shut their mouth and know their role, then there'd be peace in the Middle East.

And so the Cliff Notes version of the thread:

If the dirty brown-skinned Muslims would shut their mouth and know their role, then there'd be peace in the Middle East.

at last some sense

It is rather odd how the "Citizens and their firearms are the bulwark against dictatorship" Americans are the ones who expect the Palestinians to roll over and die for a large occupying army, isn't it? Maybe its the "brown" thing......

It is rather odd how the "Citizens and their firearms are the bulwark against dictatorship" Americans are the ones who expect the Palestinians to roll over and die for a large occupying army, isn't it? Maybe its the "brown" thing......

or... maybe its the fact that the so called resistance primary strategy is to murder civilians while hiding behild their own children.

at last some sense

There you go - calling a person a bigot is far easier than engaging them on an intellectual level. Strategy of chamipons!

Wonder what this court case was about then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm)

This lad handcuffed to the jeep doesn't look too happy ....
http://http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0424-01.jpg



The first case is not an issue of Isralis hiding behind Israli children. It was also not about Isralis hiding behind Palestinians (adult or children) and shoorint at them. Nor is it, as it actually occurred, endorsed by the authorities in Israel. Hard to draw a moral equivalence to a behavior which was not only uncommon, but is also repudiated and banned.

You may want to try checking your links. I can only presume you have a photo of some palestinian child who was attempting to injur or interfere and had to be restrained. I'm sure you'd prefer they just let him run amok in a battlefield like those in the photyos I linked... :rolleyes:

There you go - calling a person a bigot is far easier than engaging them on an intellectual level. Strategy of chamipons!

Which goes a long way to explaining why anyone who questions Israeli policy is automatically a Neo Nazi Anti-Semite.

Having been denied the justice they are due by the US use of the veto, the Palestinians are left with only two options - submission to destruction and exile, or resistance. I see no reason why any people should choose the former, even if defeat were inevitable.

The US has been very clear and explicit on their use of the veto - no action would be taken against Israel that does not also address the terrorist tactics used by Arabs. Arab nations continually issues unilateral complaints in the UN without any mention or examination of the terrirst actions Israel is often responding to. It is no wonder since Arab nations cannot even settle on a definition of terrorism.... :rolleyes:

Yes, that way anybody who allies with the US doesn't have to worry about ...international law....

I will find it eternally ironic that the only nation in recent history that has attempted to enforce international law is the one accused of ignoring it... When other nations pick up the slack and start enforcing international law rather than just talking about it - then they'll have the right to complain.

Once the Palistianians want their own state more than they want to destoy Israel there will be peace.

Once they love their children more than they hate Israel there will be peace...

Having been denied the justice they are due by the US use of the veto, the Palestinians are left with only two options - submission to destruction and exile, or resistance. I see no reason why any people should choose the former, even if defeat were inevitable.

They have been given several options several times. Proposal after proposal. Peace offer after peace offer. And they have all been rejected by the Palisitians. I think at some point they will have to accept one.

They have been given several options several times. Proposal after proposal. Peace offer after peace offer. And they have all been rejected by the Palisitians. I think at some point they will have to accept one.

Hopefully.

Once they love their children more than they hate Israel there will be peace...

That old Meir line has been chanted like a mantra over and over. Would anyone love their children to grow up as second-class citizens in a ghetto reservation?

Hopefully.

But it's unlikely that they will accept a proposal that doesn't have a capital in East Jerusalem. Understandable, though.

But it's unlikely that they will accept a proposal that doesn't have a capital in East Jerusalem. Understandable, though.

Is it? They should've taken the UN Resolution that made Jerusalem an International City. Instead, they decided to ignore the resolution and thus we have this.

Ironically....I do think we are living in the end times. I pray for peace in the Middle East but I do not believe a peace treaty is going to come anytime soon. :(

That old Meir line has been chanted like a mantra over and over. Would anyone love their children to grow up as second-class citizens in a ghetto reservation?

Right - they should move. Sure beats strapping bombs to them. Or maybe they should have taken one of the many many peace offeres where they were given 95% of what they wanted... :rolleyes:

or... maybe its the fact that the so called resistance primary strategy is to murder civilians while hiding behild their own children.

See post 80


The US has been very clear and explicit on their use of the veto - no action would be taken against Israel that does not also address the terrorist tactics used by Arabs. .

Which ignores the fact that Israel is an occupier and is therefore a convenient excuse to trot out where appropriate.

I will find it eternally ironic that the only nation in recent history that has attempted to enforce international law .

Only where convenient, unlike Nicaragua, where it was clearly in violation and continued on regardless.


Ironically....I do think we are living in the end times..

No, you're just talking through the wrong 'end'. I'm glad to see we can rely on the new voters of the worlds superpower for a rational view, however. Makes me sleep better.

This was just begging for a flamewar...

But it is as it is. Neither "side" in this conflict is totally in the "right". Both have been wronged, both have responded with further wrongs. Most people want a just peace and but are biased in terms of what that might be. Seeing the other point of view is the only way forward. Israel has further to go simply because it is the stronger party in the conflict and thus bears greater responsibility. Ideally, there would not even be a need for a two-state solution. In practice, a fair one is the best we can hope for.

Israel would not support a one state solution because that means that they will be outbred by the Palestinians.
Israels borders currently show that it has ALL the land from the Jordan River to the sea, however it does not allow the Palestinians to vote or gain any of the rights that Israelis have, even though they technically live in "Israeli non-Israel"

Golda Meir is a terrorist herself, read up Operation Wrath of God.

I will leave you with this question: If the twin towers were attacked by an F-16 sortie firing a JDAM missile at them, is that "force", or "terrorism"? Because my current observation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that the side with the most technology is in the right.

Also, people do not see that organised terrorism by the Palestinians is a fairly new phenomenon, starting in the 90s. Israel had 50 years to give the land to the Palestinians, but decided it was better to keep them locked up as non-citizens in the West Bank. Before we had the odd attack, like the Munich Massacre, but all nations recieve some form of terrorism, Israel was no different, and it did not hinder its ability to withdraw from the occupied territories, instead it served to allow them to build settlements.

See post 80

Which ignores the fact that Israel is an occupier and is therefore a convenient excuse to trot out where appropriate.

Only where convenient, unlike Nicaragua, where it was clearly in violation and continued on regardless.

No, you're just talking through the wrong 'end'. I'm glad to see we can rely on the new voters of the worlds superpower for a rational view, however. Makes me sleep better.
Post 80 really says nothing - as I clearly said in a proior post. Reply to that one if you must. Leapfrogging my prior response does not help your cause.

Regardles of the status of Israel - murder of their civilians is not justified and certainly not likely to result in them leaving sensitive areas. Until the Arabs issue a complaint against Israel that concurrently condemns terrorist - their complaints will turn on dead ends.

Regardless of Nicaragua or anyone else - the US is the only nation that seems to enforce the so called 'international law' or at least seems to carry the vast majority share of the burden. Other nations can complain when they start to shoulder some of the responsibility themselves.

I will leave you with this question: If the twin towers were attacked by an F-16 sortie firing a JDAM missile at them, is that "force", or "terrorism"? Because my current observation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that the side with the most technology is in the right.

Gee - is that really so hard for you to figure out? Nah - I'm sure you're not that dense.

Also, people do not see that organised terrorism by the Palestinians is a fairly new phenomenon, starting in the 90s. Israel had 50 years to give the land to the Palestinians, .


WTF?? :eek:

What planet are you from???

You really ARE that dense!! OMG!

I will leave you with this question: If the twin towers were attacked by an F-16 sortie firing a JDAM missile at them, is that "force", or "terrorism"? Because my current observation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that the side with the most technology is in the right.

You really are rather dense.

There is a world of diffrence between intending to kill civilians and killing civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists. The Isralies arnt the ones who are hiding amoung civilians and bluring the line between soldier and civilian. Thats the Palestinain terrorists. Intending to kill civilians is frankly appaling. And it is something the Israelies dont do. Civilians do die in these campaigns, but only because the terrorists will hide amoung them. So yes, it would be terrorism if they were attacked by an F-16.

That old Meir line has been chanted like a mantra over and over. Would anyone love their children to grow up as second-class citizens in a ghetto reservation?

Well, they sort of made the bed they're sleeping in, so tough luck...

Well, they sort of made the bed they're sleeping in, so tough luck...
I think you'll find that the policies of Nazi Germany and wide-felt pity for Jews in general, as well as imperial Britain "made the bed they were sleeping in", actually.

I think you'll find that the policies of Nazi Germany and wide-felt pity for Jews in general, as well as imperial Britain "made the bed they were sleeping in", actually.

Damn Nazis - it's all their fault that 10yr old Achmed got shot when the Hezbollah gunman hid behind him while he who was shooting at the Isralis who were raiding the factory where rockest are made to be launched over the border into their neighborhoods. Damn the Brits too. Maybe we should just negotiate with the Palestinians and give them 95% of what they want. Oh wait - tried that.

Israel would not support a one state solution because that means that they will be outbred by the Palestinians.

They have always supported a two state solution and they have always wanted to have peace with their neighbors. It was the friggin arabs, INCLUDING IRAQ, that attacked them first.

Israels borders currently show that it has ALL the land from the Jordan River to the sea, however it does not allow the Palestinians to vote or gain any of the rights that Israelis have, even though they technically live in "Israeli non-Israel"

And the middle east don't want the palestinians inside their nation despite them being responsible for the refugee crisis.

I will leave you with this question: If the twin towers were attacked by an F-16 sortie firing a JDAM missile at them, is that "force", or "terrorism"? Because my current observation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that the side with the most technology is in the right.

Why use a JDAM on a steal building? You don't even need to use that type of bomb. And then you have to ask why were they attacked. That makes a big difference.

*snip*

And this is just stupid.

Regardless of Nicaragua or anyone else - the US is the only nation that seems to enforce the so called 'international law' or at least seems to carry the vast majority share of the burden. Other nations can complain when they start to shoulder some of the responsibility themselves.

"Regardless of nicaragua or anyone else" - so when the US breached that international law by sponsoring "terrorism" in Niacaragua, and mined their harbours, that doesnt count. Or when Nixon and co supplied the Pakistan goverment with weapons in breach of an international weapons embargo when it was massacring Bangladeshis....hmmmm. You mean then that the US is the one that enforces internmational law when it suits it, and breaks it when it feels like it.


And it is something the Israelies dont do..

They've a great knack of hitting them though...considering they arent shooting at them as you say.


Damn Nazis - it's all their fault that 10yr old Achmed got shot when the Hezbollah gunman hid behind him while he who was shooting at the Isralis who were raiding the factory where rockest are made to be launched over the border into their neighborhoods.

Where was the factory here?
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

The first case is not an issue of Isralis hiding behind Israli children. It was also not about Isralis hiding behind Palestinians (adult or children) and shoorint at them. Nor is it, as it actually occurred, endorsed by the authorities in Israel. Hard to draw a moral equivalence to a behavior which was not only uncommon, but is also repudiated and banned. :

So "uncommon" it was common practice until 2005 and yes it was endorsed by the IDF, as they were the ones doing it. Not only that but the IDF are appealling the descion and in practice carry on regardless.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2331


You may want to try checking your links. I can only presume you have a photo of some palestinian child who was attempting to injur or interfere and had to be restrained. I'm sure you'd prefer they just let him run amok in a battlefield like those in the photyos I linked... :rolleyes:

You could try a number of things. If you read the article linked just above you'll also see "In April 2004, the Israeli army was caught on film after they tied a 13-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed Bedwan, to the front of a border police jeep in an effort to prevent Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones during a protest against the construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank village of Biddu. Three adult protestors, including one international and one Israeli activist, were also tied to jeeps during the same protest."

Now if Arabs were using Israelis as human shields, would you regard this as fair enough?

"Regardless of nicaragua or anyone else" - so when the US breached that international law by sponsoring "terrorism" in Niacaragua, and mined their harbours, that doesnt count. Or when Nixon and co supplied the Pakistan goverment with weapons in breach of an international weapons embargo when it was massacring Bangladeshis....hmmmm. You mean then that the US is the one that enforces internmational law when it suits it, and breaks it when it feels like it.
I won't respond to this foolishness and divert the thread - suffice to say that you obviously agree that nobody else even attempts to enforece this so called 'international law'. They really then have no room to bitch.


They've a great knack of hitting them though...considering they arent shooting at them as you say.

Yeah, really hard to imagine how that could happen... (http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields)



Where was the factory here?
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

OMFG! And you believed THAT?? Surely you could do better than some agenda ridden website. Hell - why not post links to rushlimbaugh.com too? That site has as much credibility as Joe Izuzu. About the only part that was believeable was this; Israel reoccupied Jenin Refugee Camp. I wqonder why?

http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html
Even by the standards of Palestinian refugee camps, Jenin is gruesomely special. Since the start of the Aqsa intifadeh in September 2000, the camp's activists, drawn from the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have orchestrated at least 28 suicide attacks on Israeli targets. An internal document of Arafat's Fatah organization, written in September last year and captured by the Israelis during a recent sweep, characterized the camp's people as "ready for self-sacrifice with all their means ... It is not strange that Jenin has been termed the capital of suicide attackers."

Human Rights Watch, which in a published report last week also concluded that no massacre took place,

A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers.

like most Israelis, the soldiers had been shocked by the suicide attack on a hotel in Netanya three days earlier, an atrocity that killed 28 Israelis sitting down for a Passover seder. The bomber had been sent by a Hamas cell based in Jenin.

In February, Israeli soldiers had twice gone into Jenin. Arriving each time along a single route and with limited force, they had encountered heavy resistance and departed quickly.

Eitan ruled out an air attack; he feared giving the Palestinians the public relations coup of mass civilian casualties.

See - THAT is what credible news reporting looks like. And - once again - it demonstrates that these terrorists were using the citizens of Jenin as human shields and the citizens were willing.

They have always supported a two state solution and they have always wanted to have peace with their neighbors. It was the friggin arabs, INCLUDING IRAQ, that attacked them first.



And the middle east don't want the palestinians inside their nation despite them being responsible for the refugee crisis.



Why use a JDAM on a steal building? You don't even need to use that type of bomb. And then you have to ask why were they attacked. That makes a big difference.



And this is just stupid.

Yes the Arabs attacked first, that area has always been Arabic in terms of identity and ownership, and Israel was founded unilaterally by David Ben-Gurion, another one of those 3b1l terrorists. Thats right, you don't have to be a muslim to be a terrorist, even the innocent Jews commited terrorist acts against the British. So the Arabs attacked, what do you expect them to do?

We are not responsibile for the refugee crisis, Israel was. I will give you an example. Jamal Al-Gashey is the only surviving terrorist from the Munich massacre. His village was emptied by Israel, it was subject to ethnic cleansing, some died, some fled to the refugee camps. How can that make it the Arabs responsibility? Also, many Palestinians were taken in by Arabs, over half of Jordan is Palestinians, many Palestinians live in Baghdad, however, after the nation within a nation situation in Jordan, it showed that Palestinians can only be free, satisfied, and secure inside their own land, Palestine.

My point was that if we attack someone using high-tech weaponry, it isnt terrorism. That is why the massacre in Haditha is not called terrorism, even though it was a deliberate attack on civilians. We can say they attacked the Twin Towers because we thought it held a terrorist inside it, but we were wrong. Is it terrorism? Also, Israel has killed civilians, read my above example. I should also point to in early 2000 when Israel would attack Palestinian security stations, not because they held terrorists, but because Israel didn't believe they were using them well enough, and so becomes counter-productive by destroying them.

Yes, it is true, Palestinian terrorism has only been in its current form. I shall now quote wikipedia.

During the British mandate in Palestine, Arab political violence directed against the British and against Zionist settlement included the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the riots in Palestine of May, 1921, the 1929 Hebron massacre, and the Great Uprising of 1936–1939. Prominent leaders of the Palestinian groups were Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, who was shot and killed by English soldiers, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who was deported.

According to David Meir-Levi, "From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching c. 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip." [3] The Israeli government cites dozens of these as "Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis prior to the 1967 Six-Day War". [4] [5] Between 1949 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded by fedayeen attacks. [6] [7]; according to the Anti-Defamation League "[i]n 1955 alone, 260 Israeli citizens were killed or wounded by fedayeen". [8] In 1964, the PLO was founded in order to "liberate," as they saw it, what they called the "usurped part" of Palestine, which had become the state of Israel. [9]

After Black September in 1970, the PLO and its offshoots waged an international campaign against Israelis. Notable events were the Munich Massacre (1972) and the hijacking of several civilian airliners. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Israel suffered attacks from PLO bases in Lebanon, such as the Maalot massacre in 1974. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, called "Operation Peace for Galilee" by the IDF, and the exile of the PLO to Tunis, Israel had a relatively quiet decade.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_terrorism

That was from 1920-1987. Hardly any terrorist attacks happened, you're talking about less than one a year. They are not even the same form terrorist attacks you find now (eg. suicide bomber, cafes etc.) Those all started in the 90s, so no, I am not dense. You just watch the todays news and generalise the past century.

So "uncommon" it was common practice until 2005 and yes it was endorsed by the IDF, as they were the ones doing it. Not only that but the IDF are appealling the descion and in practice carry on regardless.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2331



You could try a number of things. If you read the article linked just above you'll also see "In April 2004, the Israeli army was caught on film after they tied a 13-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed Bedwan, to the front of a border police jeep in an effort to prevent Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones during a protest against the construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank village of Biddu. Three adult protestors, including one international and one Israeli activist, were also tied to jeeps during the same protest."

Now if Arabs were using Israelis as human shields, would you regard this as fair enough?

You forgot to quote this one part - In direct violation of international and domestic law. You see - the law is there. Now those who broke it can be punished by the laws ratified and endorsed by the people of Israel. I don't see any such outrage when the Palestinians endanger their own or Isralis - nor do I see them passing any laws against it any timer soon. Where is your outrage? You want me to be angry at a few Isralis who broke their law without examining the Palestinians who endorse this sort of behavior from their own?

According to David Meir-Levi, "From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching c. 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip." ...

...from 1920-1987. Hardly any terrorist attacks happened...



9000 terror attacks from Gaza... Gee what a non-event. I wonder what the Isralis are so worked up about then?

My point was that if we attack someone using high-tech weaponry, it isnt terrorism. That is why the massacre in Haditha is not called terrorism, even though it was a deliberate attack on civilians. We can say they attacked the Twin Towers because we thought it held a terrorist inside it, but we were wrong. Is it terrorism? .


No - Haditha has been investigated as criminal. Targeting civilians is certainly NOT apart of the US war strategy - though doing everything possible to have the US inflict civilian collateral damage is ABSOLUTELY a part of the strategy of the insurgents.

If you really have such a difficulty understanding the difference between criminal activity, terrorist activity and military action then you really ought not be participating in this discussion.

They've a great knack of hitting them though...considering they arent shooting at them as you say.


Terrorists blur the line between civilian and soldier. It is the terrorists who are causing the civilian deaths by bluring that line. What are the Isralies supposed to do. Nothing because there may be collataral damage. Then they are terrorised by suicide bombers. Which is unacceptable. The Isralies have a right to defend themselves. The Palisitnaian extrmeists are not defending themselves, they are the agressors in this situation.

If only the Israelies would give them 95% of what they wanted
Oh...wait...

We are not responsibile for the refugee crisis, Israel was. .


Yeah - how dare they win the six day war!

Exactly. If the Palestinians say exactly what Israel wants, the IDF doesn't demolish Palestinian homes with artillery. This hardly seems like "negotiations".
all's fair in love and war;)

Actually, the refugee problem began in 1948, when Israel declared independence. The Arabs had announced that they were going to destroy the new nation, so the Arabs living in what became Israel, quite sensibly, fled. They didn't want to get caught in a war zone. They hoped to return after Israel had been destroyed.
However, that plan hit a snag when Israel WON. Then, when Jews living in Arab countries flooded into Israel, the Israelis used the abandoned Arab homes to house the new refugees.

Yeah - how dare they win the six day war!

Here is a double standard when it comes to war. When iraq invaded kuwait, it was considered bad and they started the largest military operation since WWII to remove iraq from kuwait. however when israel wins the 6 day war, resulting in the displacement of millions of innocents, this is considered not only fair, but something to be praised about.

9000 terror attacks from Gaza... Gee what a non-event. I wonder what the Isralis are so worked up about then?

Those 9000 terror attacks came from Egypt not palestinians. Also, those attacks were not the style you are thinking of now, which involve rockets and suicide bombers. They were mainly targetted against the IDF, and abandoned buildings, very few consisted of civilian casualties.

No - Haditha has been investigated as criminal. Targeting civilians is certainly NOT apart of the US war strategy - though doing everything possible to have the US inflict civilian collateral damage is ABSOLUTELY a part of the strategy of the insurgents.

If you really have such a difficulty understanding the difference between criminal activity, terrorist activity and military action then you really ought not be participating in this discussion.

Well the PA imprisons terrorists, and tries them as criminals (however its quite hard to do that very well when israel destroys your police force.) This means that all those non-hamas terrorist groups are actually criminals not terrorists. Lets face it, the west thinks its the world and can name everything however it wishes, and this means that the world agrees, because the west is the world.

Also, this is not the first time the US has deliberately targetted civilians, i lived in haditha for two months (funny that) and explained another thing i saw in a different thread, the one about the massacre.

Here is a double standard when it comes to war. When iraq invaded kuwait, it was considered bad and they started the largest military operation since WWII to remove iraq from kuwait. however when israel wins the 6 day war, resulting in the displacement of millions of innocents, this is considered not only fair, but something to be praised about.

This is the fallacy of questionable analogy. Why is it that every anti-Israeli argument has something illogical in it?

During the six day war, it was a preemptive or preventative attack. Israel was about to be attacked by its neighbors (and this is historical fact, its undisputed), when it attacked first. Kuwait was invaded for resources, in an operation that was not preventative or preemptive in any way whatsoever.

Those 9000 terror attacks came from Egypt not palestinians. Also, those attacks were not the style you are thinking of now, which involve rockets and suicide bombers. They were mainly targetted against the IDF, and abandoned buildings, very few consisted of civilian casualties.

This is because Gaza belonged to Egypt. By definition, the inhabitants of Gaza were Egyptian by citizenship, law, and politicacl nationality. "Palestinian" is only a term that could be used to describe them as an ethnic nationality. Amazing how Palestinian defenders want to pretend like Egyptian citizens of Gaza are "Palestinians" in one breath, then in the next claim they are Egyptains. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If you believe they are Egyptians, then it is only consistent to state that Gaza needs to be given back to Egypt, rather than be made into a Palestinian state.

Well the PA imprisons terrorists, and tries them as criminals (however its quite hard to do that very well when israel destroys your police force.) This means that all those non-hamas terrorist groups are actually criminals not terrorists. Lets face it, the west thinks its the world and can name everything however it wishes, and this means that the world agrees, because the west is the world.

Another fallacy, a false dichotomy. All terrorits are criminals, by definition, and according to the PA. Terrorism is, by definition, criminal. Its impossible to say "they aren't criminal, they are terrorist", because the former is a necessary quality of the latter.

I won't respond to this foolishness and divert the thread - suffice to say that you obviously agree that nobody else even attempts to enforece this so called 'international law'. They really then have no room to bitch..

So you just want to brush over American breaches of international law to suit their own neo-imperialist ends?




OMFG! And you believed THAT?? Surely you could do better than some agenda ridden website. Hell - why not post links to rushlimbaugh.com too? That site has as much credibility as Joe Izuzu. About the only part that was believeable was this; Israel reoccupied Jenin Refugee Camp. I wqonder why?


Two more.....

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero/caoimhebutterly.html

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Israel-Palestine/112702_courage_under_fire.htm


You want me to be angry at a few Isralis who broke their law without examining the Palestinians who endorse this sort of behavior from their own?



You claim that Israeli killings of civillians are caused by the Palestinians using civillians as shields. However thats a shakey claim, particularily where there seem to be many incidents where this does not hold true. Nor is there any sign of Palestinians rounding their own up and tieing them to jeeps or marching them in front of a squad of fighters on patrol in the same manner as the IDF.

The Isralies have a right to defend themselves. The Palisitnaian extrmeists are not defending themselves, they are the agressors in this situation.

Sorry but isnt this all happening inside the occupied territories? Territories occupied by Israel? That makes them the aggressor.


This is the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Doesnt seem very questionable an analogy to me.

Doesnt seem very questionable an analogy to me.

How many times will I have to explain to Nodinia that logic is a science and fallacies are facts. This is akin to saying "it doesn't seem like evolution to me." You can deny it, but according to the science of logic, it violates the fallacy of questionabe analogy.

How many times will I have to explain to Nodinia that logic is a science and fallacies are facts. This is akin to saying "it doesn't seem like evolution to me." You can deny it, but according to the science of logic, it violates the fallacy of questionabe analogy.

Yadda yadada

Yadda yadada

Gasp. What gravitas there! You really know your stuff, a stupendious argument.

Terrorists blur the line between civilian and soldier. It is the terrorists who are causing the civilian deaths by bluring that line. What are the Isralies supposed to do. Nothing because there may be collataral damage. Then they are terrorised by suicide bombers. Which is unacceptable. The Isralies have a right to defend themselves. The Palisitnaian extrmeists are not defending themselves, they are the agressors in this situation.

If only the Israelies would give them 95% of what they wanted
Oh...wait...
Surely by their definition you can't retaliate against a suicide bomber, the ones who've done it are already dead.

During the six day war, it was a preemptive or preventative attack. Israel was about to be attacked by its neighbors (and this is historical fact, its undisputed), when it attacked first. Kuwait was invaded for resources, in an operation that was not preventative or preemptive in any way whatsoever.
Yes, but by attacking first Israel became the aggressor, and whatever the reason for the initial attack, conquest is not an acceptable result.

I say, this is a lesson that the US shouldn't step into politics, especially in Mesopotamia. If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening.

Did you know that before the crusades, the holy city of Jerusalem was an open city? Christians, Jews, and Muslems alike were allowed access to the city and it's churches, temples, and mosques. Only after the European Crusades was the city closed off, and even then not totally.

The problem is not the Judaea/Islam hatred, althought that is certainly a factor. The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

Yes, but by attacking first Israel became the aggressor, and whatever the reason for the initial attack, conquest is not an acceptable result.

Well, although the intention was preventative or preemptive defense, I wont deny that it was aggression. Attacks and aggression tend to be synonymous. But Israel hasn't engaged in anything we can call conquest.

To begin, there was never a Palestinian state that Israel 'took over' in any way. Nor has Israel attempted to annex any parts of the Occupied Territories for gain, except for a miniscule portion for security reasons (a tiny plot of land in the Golan Heights). The entire area that Israel now occupies, it could be argued, is legally Israel's due to the San Remo Resolution. In addition, the control of the Occupied Territories was released by Jordan and Egypt to a future Palestinian state, so it currently isn't owned by anyone. Of course we intend on a two-state solution, but hypothetically, Israel would be within its full legal rights to annex the entire area and make it one state.

I say, this is a lesson that the US shouldn't step into politics, especially in Mesopotamia. If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening.

The US never gave Israel land by force. The international community gave Israel the land, and none of it was taken by force during this process.

Did you know that before the crusades, the holy city of Jerusalem was an open city? Christians, Jews, and Muslems alike were allowed access to the city and it's churches, temples, and mosques. Only after the European Crusades was the city closed off, and even then not totally.

At various points in history, under both Christian and Muslim rule, Jews were systematically persecuted and killed in Jerusalem. Since the Crusades, Jews have always been the majority in Jerusalem as well. In addition, Muslims only view one part of Jerusalem as holy (Dome of the Rock) while to Jews the entire city is holy. Keep in mind that today, Muslims are allowed anywhere they want in Jerusalem, yet Muslims exclude Jews and everyone else from the Dome of the Rock. Once again, we have Muslims persecuting Jews in Jerusalem.

The problem is not the Judaea/Islam hatred, althought that is certainly a factor. The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

The US never took over any part of Palestine. In fact, there was never a state called "Palestine." This was the term given to the land left over from the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations. The British were there, helping to administer it and establish a Jewish State, but the US never directly assisted Israelis with troops or force in establishing a state. And no land was "taken over." It was either empty, (over 80% of it), bought from Arab landowners, or kept by Arabs themselves. This was a peaceful immigration with no land being taken by force. This type of thing didn't begin to happen until after Israel declared its independence and was attacked by neighboring Arab countries. And the US didn't give Israel a nuke.

I'm not sure where you're getting all of this.

And no land was "taken over." It was either empty, (over 80% of it), bought from Arab landowners, or kept by Arabs themselves. This was a peaceful immigration with no land being taken by force.

this is the core of the row. TS has a particular sanitised view of Israel and wont deviate from it. The above statement is clearly not true, even the israeilis themselves acknowledge a bit of monkey business in emptying a few villages, but TS is sticking to this line regardless of proof. Stern Gang? Irgun? Deir Yassin? All Palestinain myths?

while these entrenched postions are help, its futile haveing a discussion on the Israeilil Palestinain conflict as TS belives one side lieterally can do no wrong and the other side can do no right.

Boring.

this is the core of the row. TS has a particular sanitised view of Israel and wont deviate from it. The above statement is clearly not true, even the israeilis themselves acknowledge a bit of monkey business in emptying a few villages, but TS is sticking to this line regardless of proof. Stern Gang? Irgun? Deir Yassin? All Palestinain myths?

The Lehi and Irgun didn't forcefully remove any Palestinians from their land before the formation of the State of Israel, nor did Deir Yassin occur before then. In response to Arab attacks, Jews fought back and expelled Palestinians from villages, yes. No one ever denied that. Yet, you practiced selective reading, and ignored what I really wrote.

There was no forceful stealing of Arab land before the state of Israel was formed.

I'll cut and paste what you responded to in this post. Read it carefully so you don't make yourself look worse:

It was either empty, (over 80% of it), bought from Arab landowners, or kept by Arabs themselves. This was a peaceful immigration with no land being taken by force. This type of thing didn't begin to happen until after Israel declared its independence and was attacked by neighboring Arab countries.

But alas, the anti-Israel crowd would like to ignore the fact that we know what we did, and pretend like I'm saying that it never occured. Yes, Israel took land from Arabs in response to Arab aggression, in military battles. No, it didn't happen before the formation of the State of Israel, and Israel was not established by stealing Arab land. All of the land that was "taken" was taken after Israel was established as a state, not to make a state.

Yes the Arabs attacked first, that area has always been Arabic in terms of identity and ownership, and Israel was founded unilaterally by David Ben-Gurion, another one of those 3b1l terrorists. Thats right, you don't have to be a muslim to be a terrorist, even the innocent Jews commited terrorist acts against the British. So the Arabs attacked, what do you expect them to do?

To have peace in the Middle East. The 1st thing Israel did when they formed their state was to recognize all of the middle east. What do they get in returned? Attacked by their neighbors and their neighbors got their butts handed to them on a silver plate. You also have to remember, that the Israeli terrorists went after he British the only and not the civilians. Cannot say the same for the Palestinian Terrorists who always seem to hit civilian targets.

*snip*

Then explain Syria's statement when they said that they were also responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis. I'm dying to hear your explaination of it since it is apparent no one else wants to give me an explaination. Also, the palestinians were also re-invited back in.

My point was that if we attack someone using high-tech weaponry, it isnt terrorism. That is why the massacre in Haditha is not called terrorism, even though it was a deliberate attack on civilians. We can say they attacked the Twin Towers because we thought it held a terrorist inside it, but we were wrong. Is it terrorism? Also, Israel has killed civilians, read my above example. I should also point to in early 2000 when Israel would attack Palestinian security stations, not because they held terrorists, but because Israel didn't believe they were using them well enough, and so becomes counter-productive by destroying them.

That would be a legitament military target in hitting security stations. Just like hitting the Pentagon was a legit target.

*snip*

Do you honestly think that terrorism is ok?

That was from 1920-1987. Hardly any terrorist attacks happened, you're talking about less than one a year. They are not even the same form terrorist attacks you find now (eg. suicide bomber, cafes etc.) Those all started in the 90s, so no, I am not dense. You just watch the todays news and generalise the past century.

I do no such thing. Unfortunately..I cannot say the same for you.

No - Haditha has been investigated as criminal. Targeting civilians is certainly NOT apart of the US war strategy - though doing everything possible to have the US inflict civilian collateral damage is ABSOLUTELY a part of the strategy of the insurgents.

If you really have such a difficulty understanding the difference between criminal activity, terrorist activity and military action then you really ought not be participating in this discussion.

Thank you Bozzy.

Here is a double standard when it comes to war. When iraq invaded kuwait, it was considered bad and they started the largest military operation since WWII to remove iraq from kuwait. however when israel wins the 6 day war, resulting in the displacement of millions of innocents, this is considered not only fair, but something to be praised about.

Here's something for you to naw on. Israel's enemies were going to attack her. It is called self-defense. Iraq attacking Kuwait was an act of aggression for Kuwait posed no threat to Iraq.

I say, this is a lesson that the US shouldn't step into politics, especially in Mesopotamia. If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening.

We gave them no land whatsoever Neurotopia.

Did you know that before the crusades, the holy city of Jerusalem was an open city? Christians, Jews, and Muslems alike were allowed access to the city and it's churches, temples, and mosques. Only after the European Crusades was the city closed off, and even then not totally.

WRONG. Learn a little history. The Crusades happened AFTER JERUSALEM FELL. They were launched to REGAIN the Holy City of Jerusalem.

The problem is not the Judaea/Islam hatred, althought that is certainly a factor. The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

History is not your thing is it?

I say, this is a lesson that the US shouldn't step into politics, especially in Mesopotamia. If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening.

The US did not give the land to the Jews, the British did.

Did you know that before the crusades, the holy city of Jerusalem was an open city? Christians, Jews, and Muslems alike were allowed access to the city and it's churches, temples, and mosques. Only after the European Crusades was the city closed off, and even then not totally.

You are 100% correct, and the crusaders did (for a while at least) allowed the Muslims to worship, but they charged them a tax to do so.

The problem is not the Judaea/Islam hatred, althought that is certainly a factor. The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

Again the US did not give the land to the Jews, the British gave the Jews the land after WWII.

Gasp. What gravitas there! You really know your stuff, a stupendious argument.

I do, such as when I showed you wrong by your own numbers. You never posted again in that thread. I wonder why.....


But Israel hasn't engaged in anything we can call conquest..

Then why are civillian settlements being built in the West Bank?


Nor has Israel attempted to annex any parts of the Occupied Territories for gain, except for a miniscule portion for security reasons (a tiny plot of land in the Golan Heights)...

Its annexed Arab East Jerusalem. Its building colonies.


The entire area that Israel now occupies, it could be argued, is legally Israel's due to the San Remo Resolution...

Were that the case, subsequent resolutions could not have been passed, as they make no sense whatsover. They don't refer to this San remo resolution because its not relevant.


In addition, the control of the Occupied Territories was released by Jordan and Egypt to a future Palestinian state, so it currently isn't owned by anyone.
...

That doesnt legitimise the Israeli occupation one iota.


It was either empty, (over 80% of it), bought from Arab landowners, or kept by Arabs themselves. ...

For the second time I ask - what rough amount in acres was bought pre-1947?


You also have to remember, that the Israeli terrorists went after he British the only and not the civilians....

Are you absolutely sure of this?

I say, this is a lesson that the US shouldn't step into politics, especially in Mesopotamia. If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening.

Did you know that before the crusades, the holy city of Jerusalem was an open city? Christians, Jews, and Muslems alike were allowed access to the city and it's churches, temples, and mosques. Only after the European Crusades was the city closed off, and even then not totally.

The problem is not the Judaea/Islam hatred, althought that is certainly a factor. The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

Oh yes, the US created Israel. It seems history disagrees, my friend. 1917--Balfour Declaration, recognition (by Sir Andrew Balfour--a British citizen) of a Jewish state in British Palestine
1947--UN declares the separation of formerly British Palestine into both Israel and Palestine
1948--Israel declares itself independent; 5 Arab states simultaneously attack the new nation
1949--armistice signed, leaving Israel in control of 78% of land; 750,000 refugees Arab refugees that are denied access to their homelands by their home governments
Where does the US create Israel?

The US never gave Israel land by force. The international community gave Israel the land, and none of it was taken by force during this process.



At various points in history, under both Christian and Muslim rule, Jews were systematically persecuted and killed in Jerusalem. Since the Crusades, Jews have always been the majority in Jerusalem as well. In addition, Muslims only view one part of Jerusalem as holy (Dome of the Rock) while to Jews the entire city is holy. Keep in mind that today, Muslims are allowed anywhere they want in Jerusalem, yet Muslims exclude Jews and everyone else from the Dome of the Rock. Once again, we have Muslims persecuting Jews in Jerusalem.



The US never took over any part of Palestine. In fact, there was never a state called "Palestine." This was the term given to the land left over from the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations. The British were there, helping to administer it and establish a Jewish State, but the US never directly assisted Israelis with troops or force in establishing a state. And no land was "taken over." It was either empty, (over 80% of it), bought from Arab landowners, or kept by Arabs themselves. This was a peaceful immigration with no land being taken by force. This type of thing didn't begin to happen until after Israel declared its independence and was attacked by neighboring Arab countries. And the US didn't give Israel a nuke.

I'm not sure where you're getting all of this.

Should have read further before posting. Good job.

Here is a double standard when it comes to war. When iraq invaded kuwait, it was considered bad and they started the largest military operation since WWII to remove iraq from kuwait. however when israel wins the 6 day war, resulting in the displacement of millions of innocents, this is considered not only fair, but something to be praised about.

Ahh, but you forget that the displacement was primarily the result of the refugees' native countries refusing to let their citizens re-enter the new territories acquired by Israel--thus leaving Israel to deal with 300,000 (not millions) of displaced non-Israeli citizens. And we wonder what all the fuss is about?

If the US hadn't given Israel land, by force, in one of the most hotly contested areas of the world, none of this would be happening. (snip)

The problem is the US took over a part of Palestine and gave control of it to it's most hated enemy! Then gave them a nuke!

Nay, nay and thrice nay. Completely wrong.


1949--armistice signed, leaving Israel in control of 78% of land; 750,000 refugees Arab refugees that are denied access to their homelands by their home governments
!

As they'd been living in Palestine for centuries, some going back as far as the Sephradic Jewish population, they were not denied "acess to their homelands" as they had in fact been just removed from their homes.

As they'd been living in Palestine for centuries, some going back as far as the Sephradic Jewish population, they were not denied "acess to their homelands" as they had in fact been just removed from their homes.

An Arab population in Palestine doesn't go back as far as a continuous Jewish population. In fact, the Arab 'race' or ethnicity is much, much younger than the Jewish ethnicity.

So you just want to brush over American breaches of international law to suit their own neo-imperialist ends?
neo-imperialist? whoooo - you are so neo-sophisticated!

Like I said - until someone else takes up some of the slack - ya ain't got no room to bitch. THere's plenty of opportunity - why is everyone waiting for the US to fix the problem? I guess so they can bitch about it too - so much easier to bitch than to do...


Two more.....

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero/caoimhebutterly.html

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Israel-Palestine/112702_courage_under_fire.htm


So lets see - she is operating in a base camp where terrorists have launched nearly thirty deadly strikes against Israli citizens and promised to send more. A base where the civilians are fully aware and supportive of this and glad to provide cover. Then she gets all shocked and surprized when the Israli Army shoes up? Why wasnt she complaing about the terrorist seeking shelter among these children? Why wasn't she complaining about them using a refugee camp as a base for terrorist (if not military) operation? Hmmm. Here's why;
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Short_Circuit=stupid.wav


You claim that Israeli killings of civillians are caused by the Palestinians using civillians as shields. However thats a shakey claim, particularily where there seem to be many incidents where this does not hold true.

Gawd are you really that stupid? Did you not just post three links about terrorists operating from a refugee camp??? WTF?


Sorry but isnt this all happening inside the occupied territories? Territories occupied by Israel? That makes them the aggressor.
.

Umm, how many Israli pizzariaas and coffee shops are in the 'occupied' territories? Are the rockes the Palestinians shooting off over Israel just 4th of July celebrations? Or maybe it is the Palestinians refusal to pursue, arrest, try and imprison those who do these things (in fact now they want to put them IN CHARGE of security!! )

Gee - can't figure why the Isralis would want to come into the poor defenseless palestinian territories to apprehend or kill terrorists... :rolleyes: How fucking hostile of them!

As they'd been living in Palestine for centuries, some going back as far as the Sephradic Jewish population, they were not denied "acess to their homelands" as they had in fact been just removed from their homes.

During the war, Israel took obtained 78% of the land in and around formerly Bristish mandated Palestine--interestingly, those that were then displaced (native citizens of other nations) were denied a return to their homelands by their home governments, providing fuel for the problems today

During the war, Israel took obtained 78% of the land in and around formerly Bristish mandated Palestine--interestingly, those that were then displaced (native citizens of other nations) were denied a return to their homelands by their home governments, providing fuel for the problems today

their home governments? they are not from egypt or jordan my friend, their home government was the government of Israel, and yes it did deny them entry, it was the country that kicked them out in the first place.

their home governments? they are not from egypt or jordan my friend, their home government was the government of Israel, and yes it did deny them entry, it was the country that kicked them out in the first place.

You aren't familiar with your history that well. The majority of Palestinians that left Israel did so by call of the Arab states, not by being forced, or 'kicked', out. Then afterwards, on multiple occassions, they were offered the right of return. Palestinians were also allowed free movement in and out of Israeli refugee camps that Palestinians had willingly fled to. However, in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Palestinians were kept within refugee camps by these governments and not allowed to move within the Arab states, become citizens with in the Arab states, or return to Israel. They were kept locked up, by these Arab states, in refugee camps. The number of Palestinians in Arab refugee camps also greatly exceeded that of Palestinians in Israeli refugee camps.

Go Israel! Go Israel! Go Israel!

An Arab population in Palestine doesn't go back as far as a continuous Jewish population. In fact, the Arab 'race' or ethnicity is much, much younger than the Jewish ethnicity.

Odd then that I read different on a site pimarily dedicated to genetic research on hereditary diseases in the Azkhenazi population.....I'll dig up a link later.


So lets see - she is operating in a base camp where terrorists have launched nearly thirty deadly strikes against Israli citizens and promised to send more. A base where the civilians are fully aware and supportive of this and glad to provide cover.

She walks children to school. Thats what she was doing when she was shot. She does it so they don't shoot the children. Are you suggesting that the kids carry the mobile "bomb factory" in their lunch?
By the way if "A base where the civilians are fully aware and supportive of this and glad to provide cover" justifies attacks on civillians, why does the same not hold true in reverse?


Gawd are you really that stupid? Did you not just post three links about terrorists operating from a refugee camp??? WTF?

No, I posted links about a woman getting shot walking children to school.

Gee - can't figure why the Isralis would want to come into the poor defenseless palestinian territories to apprehend or kill terrorists?

Well to stop them, presumably. What seems to be the problem is that they don't just come in to do that, but to build housing and take land, to annex and to populate it. Thats not "protection" thats colonisation. They are the cause of their own 'terrorist' problem

During the war, Israel took obtained 78% of the land in and around formerly Bristish mandated Palestine--interestingly, those that were then displaced (native citizens of other nations) were denied a return to their homelands by their home governments, providing fuel for the problems today?

But their homeland was the land wich you've just stated Israel obtained in the war.

The majority of Palestinians that left Israel did so by call of the Arab states, not by being forced, or 'kicked', out. Then afterwards, on multiple occassions, they were offered the right of return. .

Not according to David Ben Gurion and co, as I've demonstrated many times. And personally I take their word for it over yours.

You still owe me a retraction and apology.

Odd then that I read different on a site pimarily dedicated to genetic research on hereditary diseases in the Azkhenazi population.....I'll dig up a link later.

This is a nice non sequitur. Ashkenazi populations don't have a thing to do with what I said:

An Arab population in Palestine doesn't go back as far as a continuous Jewish population. In fact, the Arab 'race' or ethnicity is much, much younger than the Jewish ethnicity.

Especially consdering that Askhenazi Jewry is European, whereas Sefardi Jewry is that which has had a continuous presence in Israel that predates any type of Arab presence.

Not according to David Ben Gurion and co, as I've demonstrated many times. And personally I take their word for it over yours.

You've demonstrated no such thing. Not once did Ben Gurion state that Arabs were displaced en masse before the formation of the state. You've quoted out of context statements from Ben Gurion's commentary on certain Zionist beliefs held by others that Arabs should be displaced, however Ben Gurion never once endorsed this policy (if you would quote his full commentary, instead of cutting sentences in half like you love to do), nor did he state that it actually happened. Keep in mind that there is a historical concensus (as I demonstrated with Benny Morris, Mitchell Bard, etc.) that less than 2000 Arab families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel.

This is a nice non sequitur. Ashkenazi populations don't have a thing to do with what I said:

An Arab population in Palestine doesn't go back as far as a continuous Jewish population. In fact, the Arab 'race' or ethnicity is much, much younger than the Jewish ethnicity.

Especially consdering that Askhenazi Jewry is European, whereas Sefardi Jewry is that which has had a continuous presence in Israel that predates any type of Arab presence..

I merely passed on where I recall seeing the information. Perhaps in future I'll just drop any vague attempt at reasonable debate and being informal and "get hostile" all the time.


You've demonstrated no such thing. Not once did Ben Gurion state that Arabs were displaced en masse before the formation of the state. You've quoted out of context statements from Ben Gurion's commentary on certain Zionist beliefs held by others that Arabs should be displaced, however Ben Gurion never once endorsed this policy (if you would quote his full commentary, instead of cutting sentences in half like you love to do), nor did he state that it actually happened. Keep in mind that there is a historical concensus (as I demonstrated with Benny Morris, Mitchell Bard, etc.) that less than 2000 Arab families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel.

I have and he did. He changed his formerly liberal stance to embrace that of the hardliners, out of opportunism and a hardening of his own attitude perhaps caused by the refugees of the 30's and then the revelation of the holocaust. Personally I don't judge him for it. But denying that it happened is not on.

I have and he did. He changed his formerly liberal stance to embrace that of the hardliners, out of opportunism and a hardening of his own attitude perhaps caused by the refugees of the 30's and then the revelation of the holocaust. Personally I don't judge him for it. But denying that it happened is not on.

You might like to attempt to do what you've done in the past, quote something that sounds similar, out of context, that you think is related from Ben Gurion. But, it is a fact that Ben Gurion never stated that he forcefully removed Palestinians en masse before the formation of the State of Israel.

And there were no 'refugees of the 30's.' Like I've already stated, there is a historical concensus that less than 2000 families were displaced (as they were felaheen), and the majority of those simply moved elsewhere, developed communities outside of the kibbutzim, and worked for Jews instead of the previous Arab landowners that Jews bought the land from.

And there were no 'refugees of the 30's.' Like I've already stated, there is a historical concensus that less than 2000 families were displaced (as they were felaheen), and the majority of those simply moved elsewhere, developed communities outside of the kibbutzim, and worked for Jews instead of the previous Arab landowners that Jews bought the land from.

If you'd wear a foam guard to stop your froth gurgling up and blurring your vision, you'd see that I was referring to the refugees hardening Ben Gurions attitude - Were there not many Jewish Refugees fleeing Germany in the 1930's? Could this not reasonably be expected to create a greater push towards a Jewish state?

If you'd wear a foam guard to stop your froth gurgling up and blurring your vision, you'd see that I was referring to the refugees hardening Ben Gurions attitude - Were there not many Jewish Refugees fleeing Germany in the 1930's? Could this not reasonably be expected to create a greater push towards a Jewish state?

The statement was ambiguous, and since the topic was Palestinian displacement, the context would dictate that it was a reference to Palestinian refugees rather than Jewish ones. In any case, its just the plague of ambiguity.

And yes, there was a large influx of Jewish Refugees. And I wont dispute that Ben Gurion developed a hardening attitude, in fact he changed his attitude and opinions often within his career to fit the situation. However, Ben Gurion's opinions and attitudes aren't the issue, the issue is the fact that there was no forced displacement of Arabs involved in the formation of the State of Israel, save for the 2000 or so families of felaheen, Arab workers who did not own any land.

their home governments? they are not from egypt or jordan my friend, their home government was the government of Israel, and yes it did deny them entry, it was the country that kicked them out in the first place.

Oh Iraqiya, stop reading biased history will you?

The statement was ambiguous, and since the topic was Palestinian displacement, the context would dictate that it was a reference to Palestinian refugees rather than Jewish ones. In any case, its just the plague of ambiguity..

"the Holocaust" was referred to in the same sentence. You truly are an over-defensive and insecure person. And not in a way that garners sympathy.


And yes, there was a large influx of Jewish Refugees. And I wont dispute that Ben Gurion developed a hardening attitude, in fact he changed his attitude and opinions often within his career to fit the situation. However, Ben Gurion's opinions and attitudes aren't the issue, the issue is the fact that there was no forced displacement of Arabs involved in the formation of the State of Israel, save for the 2000 or so families of felaheen, Arab workers who did not own any land.

According to Benny Morris in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" 228 villages were emptied either due to Israeli action, or fear of same. You earlier stated that Morris was part of some "consensus". He is, but it appears its with a rather different view than yours.


Oh Iraqiya, stop reading biased history will you?.

Says Mr "we are in the end times"...and hes correct, in any case.

Says Mr "we are in the end times"...and hes correct, in any case.

Oh no he's not.

She walks children to school. Thats what she was doing when she was shot. She does it so they don't shoot the children. Are you suggesting that the kids carry the mobile "bomb factory" in their lunch?
...while completely ignoring the people where were coordinating and launching terrorist attacks from the same refugee camp - not only killing Isralis (which I guess is OK with you) but also endangering everyone there from the certain eventual retaliation from the Isralis. Did she speak up about them? demand they leave? Of course not! No, she only bitched when the eventual retaliation from Israel came and they weren't nice enough. If the stupid bitch really cared about those people she would have protested the presence of a terrorist cell among refugees and school children. Hence this;
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Short_Circuit=stupid.wav


By the way if "A base where the civilians are fully aware and supportive of this and glad to provide cover" justifies attacks on civillians, why does the same not hold true in reverse?

What - that the civilians attack a military? I see nothing wrong with that... Bring it on.
But,,, attacking civilians in lieu of a target of military signifigance is terrorism - and that is wrong. There is a huge difference between terrorism and collateral damage.

Last I checked the Isralis and all civilized nations tended not to stage military operations from the center of refugee camps, schools, mosques and family neighborhoods. Terrorists seek and crave to make the Isralis inflict collateral damage. They hold responsiblity for as many Palestinian deaths as Israli ones.



No, I posted links about a woman getting shot walking children to school. Who chose to remain silent while terrorists used that refugee comminuty to launch terror attacks and endanger everyone there of the eventual Israli retaliation. Sorry - she still gets this;
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Short_Circuit=stupid.wav

Had she done something about the terrorists befire the Isralis had to strike and the terrorists shot her - THEN she'd have my respect... in fact - even (and especially) if they didn't - but how likely is that. She'd be lucky if all they did was shoot her!


Well to stop them, presumably. What seems to be the problem is that they don't just come in to do that, but to build housing and take land, to annex and to populate it. Thats not "protection" thats colonisation. They are the cause of their own 'terrorist' problem
THIS is the first valid point you've made. I guess you do have a brain Mr. Tin Man! The Isralis are trying to execute their own sort of 'manifest destiny' and it is a problem. However, the Isralis have offered land for peace - 95% of what the Palestinians want - only to be rejected. Without some give and take -negotiations fail and that is what happened when the Palestinians refused to negotiate in good faith. So really - the land grab is a direct result of the Palestinians refusal to negotiate in good faith. If they were to pursue diplomatic solutions instead of terror ones - in good faith, the probnlem would have been solved during the Clinton years at the latest...

...while completely ignoring the people where were coordinating and launching terrorist attacks from the same refugee camp - not only killing Isralis (which I guess is OK with you) but also endangering everyone there from the certain eventual retaliation from the Isralis. Did she speak up about them? demand they leave? Of course not! No, she only bitched when the eventual retaliation from Israel came and they weren't nice enough. If the stupid bitch really cared about those people she would have protested the presence of a terrorist cell among refugees and school children. Hence this;...

So its ok to take widespread reprisals against civillians then? Well, as long as its sauce for the goose...though I'd be against reprisals against Israelis myself

...
What - that the civilians attack a military? I see nothing wrong with that... Bring it on.
But,,, attacking civilians in lieu of a target of military signifigance is terrorism - and that is wrong. There is a huge difference between terrorism and collateral damage.;...

In the case of Israel, it has comne to a stage where one has to say that theres only so much that one can put down to accident. If we compare the numbers of UN workers killed by Palestininians (untrained militias) vs the IDF (full time professional army) its rather strange who has the most blue helmets racked up. Likewise the admittedly entirely indiscriminate suicide bomb has racked up far less that the (supposedly) discriminate rifle. All very odd.

...
Last I checked the Isralis and all civilized nations tended not to stage military operations from the center of refugee camps, schools, mosques and family neighborhoods. Terrorists seek and crave to make the Isralis inflict collateral damage. They hold responsiblity for as many Palestinian deaths as Israli ones.
.;...

Not 50 years ago the Israelis did from kibbutz, synagogues and family homes.

And I seem to remember the IDF occupying schools and using them as forward bases in the occupied territories.


...
Had she done something about the terrorists befire the Isralis had to strike and the terrorists shot her - THEN she'd have my respect... in fact - even (and especially) if they didn't - but how likely is that. She'd be lucky if all they did was shoot her!.;...

The "terrorists" did not shoot her, or at least not the ones you mean.


...
THIS is the first valid point you've made. I guess you do have a brain Mr. Tin Man! !.;...

O no, not more "Gawd man, ur so stoopid" post Beavis and Butt-head abuse...I may cry

. ... So really - the land grab is a direct result of the Palestinians refusal to negotiate in good faith. If they were to pursue diplomatic solutions instead of terror ones - in good faith, the probnlem would have been solved during the Clinton years at the latest...

But the first settlers started moving in very, very early on. Oslo saw a massive influx to try and seize as much of the West Bank as possible in case of a final settlement.

According to Benny Morris in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" 228 villages were emptied either due to Israeli action, or fear of same. You earlier stated that Morris was part of some "consensus". He is, but it appears its with a rather different view than yours.

Israel had been formed for a year in 1949. If you actually respond to what I wrote, and what I cited from Morris, instead of a non sequitur (i.e., after the formation of the State stats), then we'd be on the same page.

Morris wrote, as I cited, that less than 2000 families were displaced during the formation of the State of Israel. Now, its very likely that he also wrote that 228 villages were emptied due to Israeli action of "fear of same" between 47-49. This was a result of the 1048 Arab-Israeli war, and these statistics also cover "fear of same", i.e. every Arab village that disbanded itself to flee to Jordan or Egypt via the call of the Mufti or other Arab leaders. Israel can't be blamed for this any more than any other party. It is also worth noting that Arab "villages" could consist of less than a hundred people, so out of the 228 villages emptied, it would be interesting to see just how many Arabs were actually displaced, and how many were displaced as a result of Israeli force, rather than those that left willingly.

If nothing else, your response was a non sequitur. If you want to get back on topic with what I wrote, you can talk about Arabs displaced by force before the formation of the State, not Arabs who left during the Arab-Israeli war as a result of combined military action and a willingness to leave.

Israel had been formed for a year in 1949. If you actually respond to what I wrote, and what I cited from Morris, instead of a non sequitur (i.e., after the formation of the State stats), then we'd be on the same page.

Morris wrote, as I cited, that less than 2000 families were displaced during the formation of the State of Israel. Now, its very likely that he also wrote that 228 villages were emptied due to Israeli action of "fear of same" between 47-49. This was a result of the 1048 Arab-Israeli war, and these statistics also cover "fear of same", i.e. every Arab village that disbanded itself to flee to Jordan or Egypt via the call of the Mufti or other Arab leaders. Israel can't be blamed for this any more than any other party. It is also worth noting that Arab "villages" could consist of less than a hundred people, so out of the 228 villages emptied, it would be interesting to see just how many Arabs were actually displaced, and how many were displaced as a result of Israeli force, rather than those that left willingly.

.



"In the beginning of the book Morris shows a map over empty Palestinian villages, and explains why the villagers left. 228 villages were evacuated due to attack from Jewish forces. In 41 villages the inhabitants were expelled by military forces. In 90 villages the inhabitants were stricken with panic due to attack on other villages, and fled. In only 6 villages the inhabitants left because the local Palestinian authorities told them. He was not able to find out why another 46 villages were emptied."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

This is from an article which centers on criticising the Palestinians, written by Morris.
"I spent the mid-1980s investigating what led to the creation of the refugee problem, publishing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 in 1988. My conclusion, which angered many Israelis and undermined Zionist historiography, was that most of the refugees were a product of Zionist military action and, in smaller measure, of Israeli expulsion orders and Arab local leaders' urgings or orders to move out. Critics of Israel subsequently latched on to those findings that highlighted Israeli responsibility while ignoring the fact that the problem was a direct consequence of the war that the Palestinians - and, in their wake, the surrounding Arab states - had launched. And few noted that, in my concluding remarks, I had explained that the creation of the problem was "almost inevitable", given the Zionist aim of creating a Jewish state in a land largely populated by Arabs and given Arab resistance to the Zionist enterprise. The refugees were the inevitable by-product of an attempt to fit an ungainly square peg into an inhospitable round hole"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,653594,00.html

It seems a man who is unsympathetic to Palestinian attitudes and actions (as can been seen in the rest of the article) still seems able to tell the truth.

So its ok to take widespread reprisals against civillians then? Well, as long as its sauce for the goose...though I'd be against reprisals against Israelis myself
Nobody said it is OK to take reprisals against citizens. I don't have any idea how you could read that from anything I wrote. Try again.


In the case of Israel, it has comne to a stage where one has to say that theres only so much that one can put down to accident. If we compare the numbers of UN workers killed by Palestininians (untrained militias) vs the IDF (full time professional army) its rather strange who has the most blue helmets racked up. Likewise the admittedly entirely indiscriminate suicide bomb has racked up far less that the (supposedly) discriminate rifle. All very odd.
The UN thing is interesting - do you have data to share? As far as the rifle being 'indiscriminate' - you really don't have much military training - do you... Did you miss this? http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields Not to mention - who decides who was civilians and who was terrorists? Lets face it - if the terrorists were not taking cover among civilians (like any respectable army) there would not be many civilian deaths to speak of. Am I glad for civilian deaths? Of course not. But the civilians have to , at some point, hold the people responsible who took cover among them while launching deadly attacks.


Not 50 years ago the Israelis did from kibbutz, synagogues and family homes.
yea, so? It don't make it right now.

And I seem to remember the IDF occupying schools and using them as forward bases in the occupied territories.
Nobody said they were perfect...


The "terrorists" did not shoot her, or at least not the ones you mean.

Once again you missed the point. I never said they did - only that they would have had she attempted to defend the Palestinian children by asking those terrorists to leave the refugee camp or not attack Israel from there. In fact - she would be lucky had the ONLY shot her. Though she would at least have earned some degree of credibility and respect.


O no, not more "Gawd man, ur so stoopid" post Beavis and Butt-head abuse...I may cry
http://members.tripod.com/~food_godBB/hahem.au

Nobody said it is OK to take reprisals against citizens. I don't have any idea how you could read that from anything I wrote. Try again.]

a

The UN thing is interesting - do you have data to share? .]

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm




As far as the rifle being 'indiscriminate' - you really don't have much military training - do you... Did you miss this? http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields .]

I didn't. You seem to dismiss the Israeli rounding up of Palestinians as human shields though.


Not to mention - who decides who was civilians and who was terrorists? .]

An occupying force with no right to be there, seemingly many of whose members have a "thing" against school girls, UN schools and UN workers.



Lets face it - if the terrorists were not taking cover among civilians (like any respectable army) there would not be many civilian deaths to speak of. Am I glad for civilian deaths? Of course not. But the civilians have to , at some point, hold the people responsible who took cover among them while launching deadly attacks..]

Well, I'm sure that they'd be glad to retreat to their barracks and put on a uniform, but the fact that - as with all liberation movements- they are of and from the people. They have no bases, no safe haven, no airforce, navy or armour.


yea, so? It don't make it right now.
..]

A rather inane and trite response. It shows the rather hypocritical attitude of the Israelis when speaking on "terrorism" and the rather insane nature of the diatribes against the Palestinians, as if they were the only people ever to engage in what might be best described as "dirty" warfare.


Nobody said they were perfect... ..]

Well the implication is that they are as near or next to as possible, especially by Tropical and one or two others.


Once again you missed the point. I never said they did - only that they would have had she attempted to defend the Palestinian children by asking those terrorists to leave the refugee camp or not attack Israel from there. In fact - she would be lucky had the ONLY shot her. Though she would at least have earned some degree of credibility and respect...]

By aiding and abetting a continued occupation Army. Certainly she'd earn no respect from me for such an act, and the respect of those who support oppression is not really the kind of thing most of us would wish for....

*snip*

Since you failed to respond, I'll just ask it clearly again. Why are you bringing up military explusions of Palestinians that occured during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in response my statement that Morris wrote less than 2000 Palestinian families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel?

Can anyone say red herring?

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

The Nizkor Project: Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

I am so tired of having to constantly point out your fallacies. :rolleyes:

Since you failed to respond, I'll just ask it clearly again. Why are you bringing up military explusions of Palestinians that occured during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in response my statement that Morris wrote less than 2000 Palestinian families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel?

Can anyone say red herring?

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

The Nizkor Project: Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

I am so tired of having to constantly point out your fallacies. :rolleyes:

I noted your mention of this earlier. I have no idea why you think you can change the goalposts now however.

I've constantly said that the 1st Arab Israeli war was used as an excuse to remove Arabs by some. Its true to say that others used it as an excuse to remove Jews as well. That doesnt mean that the former didnt happen though.

I noted your mention of this earlier. I have no idea why you think you can change the goalposts now however.

I've constantly said that the 1st Arab Israeli war was used as an excuse to remove Arabs by some. Its true to say that others used it as an excuse to remove Jews as well. That doesnt mean that the former didnt happen though.

You responded to my statement that less than 2000 Arab families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel with the statement that Morris wrote some 200 something families were displaced between 47-49.

This is a textbook example of a red herring, ther really is no getting around that fact.

You responded to my statement that less than 2000 Arab families were displaced before the formation of the State of Israel with the statement that Morris wrote some 200 something families were displaced between 47-49.

This is a textbook example of a red herring, ther really is no getting around that fact.

This is precisely what you said -


"the issue is the fact that there was no forced displacement of Arabs involved in the formation of the State of Israel, save for the 2000 or so families of felaheen, Arab workers who did not own any land..

Its trying to shift the goal posts, presumably to something pathetically pedantic.

My contention is that the majority of the 750,00 or so Arab refugees from within what is now the state of Israel were created by Israeli military action during the Arab Israeli war, and not by some organised plan on their part to leave and then come back as often claimed. Thats it. Its not complicated, and it varies little every time I say it.

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

Link not working...


I didn't. You seem to dismiss the Israeli rounding up of Palestinians as human shields though. No - I didn't. Feel free to go back and check for yourself.


An occupying force with no right to be there, seemingly many of whose members have a "thing" against school girls, UN schools and UN workers.
Riiiight., No right at all to pursue those people sending attacks and rockets in. How dare they!

Well, I'm sure that they'd be glad to retreat to their barracks and put on a uniform, but the fact that - as with all liberation movements- they are of and from the people. They have no bases, no safe haven, no airforce, navy or armour. If the 'are and from the people' then you are suggesting that all of the people are terrorists - I doubt it. As far as a liberation movement goes - every person who has ever fought for liberty has just been insulted by you. Only the most perverted of all liberty is found by sending your own children to blow themselves up on a bus. No bases - no safe havens - of course not - they are terrorists. The difficulty the have of creating a militia IS understood. I can tell you though - they would do better to follow the footsteps of Ghandi or MKJ Jr. than the path they are on so far - which has brought them no successes whatsoever - only death.


A rather inane and trite response. It shows the rather hypocritical attitude of the Israelis when speaking on "terrorism" and the rather insane nature of the diatribes against the Palestinians, as if they were the only people ever to engage in what might be best described as "dirty" warfare
No - it is childish to say 'If they did it before, regardless of how wrong it was, it is not fair if you won't let us do it now.'


Well the implication is that they are as near or next to as possible, especially by Tropical and one or two others.
No, and the news today demonstrates that.

By aiding and abetting a continued occupation Army. Certainly she'd earn no respect from me for such an act, and the respect of those who support oppression is not really the kind of thing most of us would wish for....
aiding and abbetting? - that's what you call it when someone tells active terrorists to leave a refugee camp? Damn do you have a fucked up value system. The concept of concenquences must be quite foriegn to you.... you know - like "If we let these terrorists attack Israel 28 times from here and they kill lots and lots of them there is no liklihood whatsoever that the Isralis might not come here looking for them - and even if they do they will be nice and neighborly about it..." :rolleyes: